commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Germuska <>
Subject Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:50:28 GMT
At 2:42 PM -0500 3/31/05, James Mitchell wrote:
>Sean, I don't mind applying these changes so long as the other 
>committers agree that this would be a good fit.  Last I heard, there 
>are still questions or concerns about adding this.  I have not been 
>able to find the time to look any deeper into this, so I can't argue 
>one way or the other.

I'm at +0 right now -- I don't feel strongly enough about my earlier 
reservations to put up a fuss.


>James Mitchell
>Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
>Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
>EdgeTech, Inc.
>AIM:   jmitchtx
>Yahoo: jmitchtx
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Schofield" <>
>To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [chain] [nag] Please commit stuff for DispatchChain
>>I know its been a while since we discussed this ... but I would like
>>to bring up the issue of DispatchChain again.  I have a pressing need
>>for something like this in my current application.  I need to go ahead
>>and move it into our project codebase or have it added to
>>commons-chain.  No hard feelings if I cannot convince you that this is
>>I will briefly summarize my arguments again.  The dispatch chain
>>allows you to compose a chain of commands where the command method can
>>be something other than execute.  It will always have the same
>>arguments and it will always be the same for every command in the
>>chain.  I think the fact that it is always the same method for every
>>command in the chain is a key point here.  Its still the CoR pattern.
>>There is nothing special about the name of the execute method, the
>>pattern just requires a consistent method.
>>If you do not accept this line of reasoning then I would suggest that
>>DispatchLookupCommand be removed from the codebase as well.  I don't
>>think you can justify one and not the other.  Finally, its in the
>>generic package so its entirely optional if you don't want to use it.
>>I'd like to resolve this ASAP so I can go forward on my project here
>>at work.  Please give some thought to my arguments.  As I said
>>earlier, I will accept the decision of the group if the group cannot
>>be persuaded.
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:09:11 -0500, Sean Schofield
>><> wrote:
>>>My original post to bugzilla didn't generate any responses.  I figured
>>>once I wrote something and started pestering for a commit that would
>>>get the discussion going ;-)
>>>I will await your guys feedback once you've had a chance to think
>>>about use cases, etc.
>>>Let me know if you have any questions.
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Joe Germuska <> wrote:
>>>>  At 9:20 AM -0800 1/14/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
>>>>  >I plead guilty to being lukewarm (is lukecold a word? :-) about
>>>>  >DispatchChain and friends being part of the standard chain package --
>>>>  >I'd like to spend some time tomorrow (Saturday) looking at the code
>>>>  >and seeing if I buy in to Sean's use cases.
>>>>  This has been my hesitation too.  Since I haven't yet had a use case
>>>>  for it, it seems a bit heavy for inclusion in the core library.
>>>>  I wouldn't veto it, but it's why I have been hesitant.  Like Craig, I
>>>>  haven't looked very carefully at it, so I haven't spoken up yet.
>>>>  Joe
>>>>  --
>>>>  Joe Germuska
>>>>  "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction"  -The Ex
>>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>  For additional commands, e-mail:
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

Joe Germuska       
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction"  -The Ex

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message