avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [POA] Excalibur Releases
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:19:53 GMT


Leo Sutic wrote:

>  
>
>>From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@citi-us.com] 
>>
>>Step one: Decide what we are going to do with Instrument.
>>
>>   Option A: Release instrument and instrument manager ASAP
>>       + Code is kept clean
>>       - We have alot to do
>>   Option B: Make dependencies on instrument soft by using
>>             reflection.
>>       + We can take our time with instrument
>>       - Reflection code is ugly.
>>    
>>
>
>Berin,
>
>I'd like to add an 
>
>    Option C: Rework the package structure for Instrument
>              and release it. Just move code around, nothing more.
>         + We're not touching any logic, meaning that we'll be
>           doing a lot of search/replace but when it compiles
>           it is ready to go.
>         - We have a lot to do
>
>By reworking package structure I mean moving the interfaces to:
>
>org.apache.avalon.instrument
>org.apache.avalon.framework.ext.instrument
>org.apache.avalon.frameworkext.instrument
>org.apache.avalon.frameworkx.instrument
>org.apache.avalon.extensions.instrument
>org.apache.avalon.ext.instrument
>come.on.insert.your.idea.here
>...
>
>or whatever package name we come up with. There was strong opposition
>to putting instrument in o.a.a.framework, but I think there was
>some consensus that it should be interface/impl separated and
>moved out of excalibur.
>  
>

I don't mind if instrument stays under the excalibur package.
I do think that client needs to be repackaged as part of the AltRMI 
monitori.

>>       * How much work is involved in bringing it close enough
>>         for release?  If too much -1.
>>    
>>
>
>I think a package renaming/refactoring is achievable (i.e. I volunteer
>to do it). Anything else is too much. Any change in program logic is
>way too much.
>  
>

Can we take a minimum change approach here ?
I.e. keep in it excalibut but clean up the seperation between manager 
and monitor (i.e. the manager AltRMI extension and the instrument client)?
I think this is achievable and will lead to less confusing in the future.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net




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


Mime
View raw message