geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <Alex.Blew...@ioshq.com>
Subject Re: [core] why org.apache.geronimo.enterprise.deploy.provider package?
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:55:02 GMT
On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 14:35 Europe/London, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>> 'provider' is too generic a name. Would this mean 'mail provider'?
>> 'session replication provider?' A package without a definite 
>> definition
>> isn't going to solve the problems.
>
> If you look at the spec, there's a section for the "product
> provider" and a section called "tool provider".  We split this into 
> "tool"
> (tool provider) and "provider" (product provider), since at the time it
> seemed better than "tool" and "product".  Anything you can some up 
> with to
> distinguish "tool" from "product" is good.  They ought to go in 
> different
> packages, because they need to go in different JARs.

I think you would be better off calling them 'tool' and 'product' then. 
It's clear that even looking at the specs on its own, there is a 
potential for misunderstanding between 'tool provider' and 'product 
provider'. Or 'mail provider' or 'transaction provider' ... etc.

The problem is that the package should be called (IMHO) on what it is 
doing. A provider is a generic noun, whereas using the more descriptive 
'tool' or 'product' may give it a more descriptive name (or come up 
with a better package name :-)

I concur that they probably need to go into different JARs, and 
therefore come from different packages, but think that a less generic 
name may be better.

Alex.


Mime
View raw message