geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Monson-Haefel <>
Subject Re: [moving-code]* back to core
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:29:04 GMT
I'm not an expert at CVS, but isn't it possible to restrict changes to a
particular set of sources to specific parties.  In other words, make it so
that  only a few people in-the-know can modify the source code of the 77

On 8/18/03 8:45 PM, in article, "Dain Sundstrom"
<> wrote:

> On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> The JSR Object model classes have not part of the spec *API* - hence
>> they are not in the package.
>> But they are defined by the spec.  They are our java implementations
>> of Object models that are clearly defined in the spec.  Thus I think
>> that putting them under the spec module in our package name is
>> reasonable.
> That is like saying our transaction manager should go into the JTA spec
> tree.
>> They are not our implementations of the spec API - that is
>> AbstractStateManageable and that is in the geronimo core module.
> Yes "they are not our implementations" and belong in out implementation
> tree... modules.
>> If we move StateManageable interface back to a geronimo core module,
>> then we may as well just get rid of it and have the Component interface
>> provide the correct Object model.
> No state manageable is a simple interface that only has the state
> manageable methods defined in chapter 5.  Component has a container and
> an object name.  I think we should consider renaming component to
> J2EEManageObject as it more closely resembles it, but it would mean
> adding a few more methods, and is for another discussion.
>> The idea of factoring out StateManageable was to make it clear what
>> part of the implementation API was dictated by the spec - not just
>> happenstance that a class has a spec compliant API.
> Just put some java doc that says this if from the J2EE management spec
> chapter 5.  Don't change it.
>> We had the discussion and decided to move them - and they have been
>> moved.  But if you really feel strongly about it, then can you propose
>> an alternate solution to just putting them back into
>> org.apache.geronimo.core
>> I strongly believe that our java implementation of the jsr77 Object
>> models needs
>> to be put somewhere that idicates that the API is controlled by a spec
>> - and
>> the spec module under our own package appears to meet that criteria.
> All of our implementations are controlled by specs.
> -dain

View raw message