commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From otisg <ot...@ureach.com>
Subject Re: Re: [Chain]: k2d2 framework
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:50:33 GMT

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag


---- On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Ted Husted (husted@apache.org) wrote:

> Could you be more specific as to which classes or packages
Chain might 
> have in common wiht k2d2?

Just reading the names of some of the components in Chain made
me think of k2d2 immediately.  Yes, also because this is a
common software design pattern. :)
 
> Of course, many, many applications and frameworks include 
> implementations of the Chain of Responsibility pattern.
[Otherwise, it 
> wouldn't be a pattern :)]

I agree.

> The goal of this package is to provide an implementation that
is 
> independent of a larger framework, so that it can easily
reused and 
> shared between applications and frameworks.

I finally had the chance to take a look at it last night.  I
think I understand what it is.  It is primarily an API-defining
code, but it also has some concrete implementations of that API,
suitable for servlet and portlet environments.

> Chain is designed to do exactly one thing well, whereas it
would appear 
> that k2d2 has a larger mission.

k2d2 looks like a concrete implementation of an API that is
defined within the k2d2 framework itself.  The implementation
allows generic components to be assembled in a chain, and
connected with blocking queues.  I guess this is where the
concreteness of k2d2 shows - it is more than just the API. 
However, Chain also has some concrete implementations, so I was
wondering why not also provide a concrete implementation that
k2d2 provides, but change it to implement Chain's API, not the
one that k2d2 defines internally.

I could still be missing out on the bigger logical picture of
Chain.  I also understand the attraction of keeping this
component small, reusable, and as simple as possible.

> The Commons was formed so that packages 
> like this could live outside of larger frameworks, like
Avalon, Turbine, 
>    Struts, et al. So far, this strategy has been quite
successful.

I agree again.  I benefit from this way of thinking and this
type of software design every day. :)

Thanks,
Otis


> otisg wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I just learned about the Commons Sandbox's Chain project. 
After
> > reading the proposal, I realized that Chain sounds very
much
> > like the k2d2 framework, which you can find at
> > http://www.k2d2.org/framework/index.html.  I believe this
> > framework implements the same patterns as Chain.  I have
used
> > k2d2 framework successfully and found no bugs in it.  The
new
> > version (you can see the link at the top of the page), also
> > includes code to deal with remote commands, I believe.
> > 
> > Would it be too much to ask that whomever is working on
Chain
> > (Craig McClanahan, Ted Husted?, maybe others) to take a look
at
> > k2d2 and consider adopting that framework?  Or, perhaps,
the
> > classes in k2d2 could be used as implementations of
interfaces
> > that Chain aims to define.  The author of k2d2 has
considered
> > donating the code to Avalon a while back, I believe.
> > 
> > Any feedback to this proposal would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Otis
> 
> 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message