Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 84344 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2002 15:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by 209.66.108.5 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2002 15:09:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 27174 invoked by uid 97); 26 Jun 2002 15:09:20 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27128 invoked by uid 97); 26 Jun 2002 15:09:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27116 invoked by uid 98); 26 Jun 2002 15:09:19 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Subject: RE: [commons-logging] New services API To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: rsitze@us.ibm.com Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:08:29 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM201/04/M/IBM(Build M13TT_06062002 Pre-release 2|June 06, 2002) at 06/26/2002 11:08:52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=09BBE177DFC330BE8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE177DFC330BE" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Rating: 209.66.108.5 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: 209.66.108.5 1.6.2 0/1000/N --0__=09BBE177DFC330BE8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE177DFC330BE Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >> Any objection to checking the 'service' package in under logging and making >> changes to the logger as described? >> >I like the concept of abstracting out this logic (mabye we could call it >"discovery" to avoid name conflict with the "services" package already in >the sandbox?). The design pattern is definitely useful and reusable. Services is a noun, discovery is a verb... Agree that I've got a collision. Also agree that services is overloaded. I'm going to create the 'discovery' tree in the sandbox, rename the package to 'org.apache. commons.service.discovery', and keep my class names as-is. We can straighten any remaining concerns out in the sandbox. I'd also advocate that the existing (more heavy-weight/configurable) service package be renamed to 'org.apache.commons.service.manager'. Olag, what do you think? >I think making commons-logging depend on it would need a 1.1 release, with >release notes that prominently highlighted the new dependency. And that >would need to wait for a 1.0 release of the discovery thingie. >You can put the code into the sandbox without a vote (I'll make sure you >have appropriate karma - every Jakarta committer gets that if they want >it). You can add me as a maintainer on your status file. To get into >commons proper, though, it'll need a formal vote. I'd suggest doing the >grunt work in the sandbox first. >Craig --0__=09BBE177DFC330BE8f9e8a93df938690918c09BBE177DFC330BE--