geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [General] Container interface and AbstractContainer
Date Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:01:53 GMT
Dain Sundstrom wrote:


> 
> BTW, they really aren't Java interfaces, but rather exposed management 
> interfaces, which are just naming conventions.
> 

grumble, grumble, snarl, spit...

<rant type="stupid specs">
   Why have a language feature like interfaces if you speicify in all your
   JSRs that everything has to be done by naming conventions and reflection?!
   I swear that stupid stuff like _forcing_ a naming convention or _forcing_
   the use of reflection for a tool to work is IMNSHO a pile of dung!

   I have been living for quite some time without having to do any of that
   crap, and I can still get at all my services and components, etc.  Not
   to mention it operates quicker and is easier to manage and maintain.

   IMO many of the JSRs out there like this are seriously broken because of
   all the crap that you have to go through to stay compliant.  Things are
   so tightly specified that if you ever thought of a better or easier way
   of doing things you would suddenly be out of spec.

   One of my complaints about specs like JMX and now JSR077 is that they
   force the stinking naming convention on you and give you no freedom
   to improve while remaining true to the intent of the spec.  All it takes
   is a few extra brain cells and you can solve the problem without the
   naming convention or braindead implementation.
</rant>

Sorry, now that I got that off of my chest, I can help make the broken
spec work as best possible.  (I know it isn't your fault that's the way
the spec was written).

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


Mime
View raw message