avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leif Mortenson <l...@tanukisoftware.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move instrument core to framework. (Was Re: [altrmi] adding components to assist in connection pooling..)
Date Thu, 08 Aug 2002 22:24:16 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:

> Peter Royal wrote:
>
>> I had a long message ranting about the split written but decided not 
>> to send it :) 
>
I don't understand what the rant would be about???

>> Pushing the core into framework would work, but I think splitting the 
>> core and the client/mgr back into separate excacalibur subprojects 
>> might be best.
>
> Any reason why this can't live as one excalibur project that happens 
> to have three subprojects within it? 

Do you mean like this?
excalibur/
    component/
    instrument/
        core/
        manager/
        client/
    zip/
    etc./

That would work.  But it would make instrument different than all of the 
other projects.  It seems like
that would just cause headaches for things like depchecker.   Most 
projects would refer to other
projects via ${basedir}/../component  But instrument subprojects would 
be ${basedir}/../../component

Personally, I thought it was better to keep the subprojects looking 
exactly like other projects.  Even
if that means 1 or 2 more projects.

excalibur/
    component/
    instrument/
    instrument-manager/  (client could live here as well)
    instrument-client/
    zip/
    etc./

My reason for thinking of moving the instrument core into framework is 
that those classes are really
very similar to things like Startable or Loggable in how they are used. 
  Those classes have also
remained perfectly stable since they were first created.  I think the 
only changes have been with
javadocs.

Placing them over there would allow us to have only one instrument 
project in Excalibur.
Furthermore.  A growing number of projects in Excalibur depend on 
Instrument either directly
or due to their usage of other subprojects like pool etc.   Those 
projects also almost all already
use framework.

The drawback to placing instrument core into framework is that it ties 
the Instrument core to
framework.   Currently, the core instrument classes have 0 dependencies 
so they can be used
pretty much anywhere.

As far as code stability.  All three projects are currently at version 
0.3 to keep them aligned.  But
I would give the core a stable version of 1.0.  manager is pretty 
stable.  But the client is stull under
heavy development and needs more work.

Thoughts

Cheers,
Leif



--
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