commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jerome lacoste <>
Subject Re: [exec] vision for the library
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:09:01 GMT
> > Proposed architecture
> > - Launchers: exist as today
> > - OS functionality
> > - ProcessLauncher, (our ProcessBuilder)
> > - Execute (or Executor?): Flexible, we use it to tie together the
> > various concepts in the execute() call (stream management, process
> > management, process building, etc...)
> > - Exec (or ??) makes it easy to use Execute/or.
> I'm missing the difference between Exec and Executor - but otherwise agree.

Exec was deemed to be an object that makes it easy to use the Executor
for simple use cases, while Executor was more flexible.

> > The architecture doesn't need to be very different from what it is today.
> > In fact I think it can be achieved by refactoring the current code. I like that.
> I'd like to have some clean interfaces even if they are similar.
> I think we should use interfaces with an implementation so we can later
> do what Dion suggested at one point - a "remote exec" implementation.

I'd rather have implementations then we add an interface in a later
version if we need a remote exec.

Jerome, trying to use less interfaces

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

View raw message