avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Release Plan] Excalibur (Phase I)
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2003 21:26:16 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> 
> 
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>>> We have a soft dependency on AltRMI, so we can opt to push that
>>>> release later if necessary.  Paul how do you feel about getting
>>>> an AltRMI release out?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> it looks like AltRMI is indeed getting a new home @ incubator 
>>> (whoohooh!). In the light of that, I suggest we don't release any 
>>> altrmi packages with a status other than alpha.
>>
>>
>>
>> The dependency is very soft.  It does not have to be included at all,
>> although we can have Instrument-Manager released with the "experimental"
>> feature (which seems pretty stable BTW).  As long as it is marked that
>> way, we should be OK.  If AltRMI is not in the classpath, the standard
>> transport is always available.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain the notion of "soft"?
> 
> As I undertand things you can build and deploy using the Instrument 
> package - but to do anything with this you need an instument manager 
> which talks to an instrument client. If code includes the instrument 
> manager then currently that means a *hard* dependency on AltRMI. 
> Fortress has a hard dependency on Instrument Manager therefor it has a 
> hard dependecy on AltRMI.
> 
> Is this correct or not?

You can run with the client and the manager in the same JVM.  Or you
can do what Cocoon did and write your own way of generating the info.
It is soft in the sense that it is not needed to run ECM/Fortress.


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


Mime
View raw message