avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <...@leosimons.com>
Subject RE: excalibur package naming (RE: [VOTE] Should Command be a sub of event?)
Date Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:30:43 GMT
first of, my ISP has decided to migrate to different POP servers today, so I am probably missing
a little bit (this is through webmail, so apologies for formatting as well).

> > 6): java does not allow duplication in descriptive names among peers.
> 
> Yes, but can they not be disambiguated any other way than by
> giving them fantasy names? Could you *please* re-read the reply
> I sent to your first mail 
> (http://archive.covalent.net/jakarta/avalon-dev/2002/04/0228.xml) which 
> prompted Peter Donald's reply and my last letter before this one?

Don't worry, I have.

> As an example from the Java API: class Reference exists
> in both java.lang.ref.Reference and javax.naming.Reference.
> No problem - different packages.

As was said before: we're talking 'bout package names, not class names. The fact that java
has indeed namespace support (through packages) is well known but doesn't say anything about
packages.

> Do we want to use the flat structure you propose if the cost
> is incomprehensible names? I do not.

That structure has been proposed several times, and accepted. I am open to changing it again
if there if enough reason to do so. I don't think the cost of the flat structure is incomprehensible
names.
Quoting the Java API once more, it contains many packages in java.* and javax.* (certainly
more than excalibur), with peer package dependencies.

> > That other Leo is 'shouting' a lot because he does not like the
> > conclusion reached. He does not point out the flaw in logic, or
> > an alternative logical approach that satisfies our requirments.
> 
> I suppose questions of usability does not factor in 
> (http://archive.covalent.net/jakarta/avalon-dev/2002/04/0178.xml)
> 
> I suppose (http://archive.covalent.net/jakarta/avalon-dev/2002/04/0228.xml)
> does not count for an answer or a suggestion, as you have not replied to
> it and do not consider it a "logical approach". But could you
> please point out why it does not solve the problems?

I have not replied because I thought it unneccessary to post a "me too". Anyway, following
the 'logical approach', extracting your comments as 'logic rules', here's what I get:

Leo Sutic:
> We do not want several competing event packages.
> We may need several implementations of the event api
> interfaces, but I do not want

>    interface excalibur.suticsevent.EventManager
>    interface excalibur.simonsevent.EventManager

> with those being incompatible. 

Basically, in the 'logic rule world', you are saying: "I don't want #4". That is no solution,
as we have #4 and can't really do without it (or really want to, at least not completely).

Leo Sutic
> As for the subpackage names, they should be
> descriptive of the difference between the two
>implementations:
<example snipped>

I agree. This is however also not always possible, as there may well be multiple differences,
differences that cannot be keyed in a single word (or even phrase), etc etc.

> > It is clear that the current conclusion works for quite a few of the
> > committers.
> Maybe, but looking at the list lately I have seen at least some people
> who do agree with me.
<snip>
> Of 
> what use will Excalibur be if only committers can use it?

You misintepreted/I miswrote my statement. I do not mean that because the solution works for
some it should be the solution.
Note however, that Apache is a meritocracy, so if committers choose to make something (easily)
usable only to them, they're still following the rules. But that's not really the point is
it? Let's drop this :)

> I have thrown my veto against the change. By the rules the only 
> way you can change that is by lobbying me and trying to convince me that 
> I am wrong.

err...all rules are open to interpretation. If I say "we cannot just have descriptive names
as that does not work" you can try to -1.

the guidelines say "All vetos must contain an explanation of why the veto is appropriate.
Vetos with no explanation are void." They also say "Long term plans are simply announcements
that group members are working on particular issues related to the Project. These are not
voted on,"

you have vetoed a single package name change (or 2) within excalibur, and I'm not even talking
about that for now, as I want to talk about long term solutions.

> If your statement was meant as a joke then I fell for it,
> but if it isn't you should reconsider.

I'm not quite sure which of my statements (I made a few) you are referring to.

> > (Frankly, I don't care that much what *your* manager thinks
> > of open source projects, or roleplaying. I need stuff to work. It is not
> > a problem for me.)
> 
> I'd say that attitude is wrong for several reasons, but I can not change 
> it. All I can say is that the attitude of my manager and myself in regards 
> to this is more common than you'd think among professional developers.

Let me rephrase: I don't care very much about what your manager thinks. He might be incompetent
and blatantly stupid (so, I'm prejudiced...). I care about you think, as I know you, and you
think sensible things.

> If you are not willing to accept that on my saying so, and can not
> consult a chief architect or CTO, the proof is in the Java API itself. 

:) I'm CTO myself...but seriously, where is there proof in the Java API that I should care
what your manager thinks of open source projects or roleplaying?

> > Since the other Leo has not yet formulated a logical process leading
> > to a different conclusion, I'd like to give him oppurtunity to do so.
> 
> I believe I have several times stated that the approach you advocate
> will make Excalibur unusable for commercial development. I have suggested
> alternatives.

Please, where? "I don't want competing libraries within avalon as has happened with logkit"
is not a viable alternative in my opinion, nor is "we should use descriptive names only" as
the sole reason we have this discussion is that I think that is not possible.

> I'd like to repreat those arguments here, but it would 
> appear that you are only baiting me - no matter what I reply you will deny
> that it is a logical process.

I think this is not fair. Rather than argue about that I suggest you simply try again, for
the reason that we are both working on this project together.

The reason I talked about 'logical process' is because of the notation I used, which is pseudo-logical
in a mathematical sense (I don't know the correct English terms, it appears).

> Just one final thought for you: How often is a serious proposal on this
> list mistaken for an April Fool's joke? *Four* *days* after April 1st?

Once every year?

> -1 stands.

see above.

cheers,

- Leo


__________________________________________
Launch your own web site Today!
Create a Web site for your family,
friends, photos, or a special event.
Visit: http://www.namezero.com/sitebuilder

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message