geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: [moving-code]* back to core
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:58:13 GMT
On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 07:31 PM, wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> This is the one that really threw me... Why do we have a
>> package?  This is outside of our project
>> space and should be at least, and
>> without the j2ee as it is redundant because geronimo is a j2ee server.
> There was a discussion regarding these packages and what they should be
> called. The discussion at hand (as I recall) was that there needed to 
> be
> a clear differentiation between the JSR77? and JMX packages, which is 
> why
> the package J2EE Management was created; see JSR77:

I suggested, but don't get me wrong 
everything we are doing is JMX.  I am just suggesting management as our 
JMX package contains JMX extensions and utilities.

>> The other thing is these classes are not part of the spec so should 
>> not
>> be in the spec tree at all.  I will be moving these back to core.
> Are they not an implementation of the spec? From what I recall of the
> discussions of JSR77, there were untyped interfaces that relied solely 
> on
> naming conventions in order to work. I recall that some generic
> implementations were created to satisfy those naming conventions, but 
> as
> you say, they are not part of the 'official' interface.

The is exactly my point.  These class are our implementation, and our 
implementation classes go into the plain old modules trees.  If we were 
to follow the logic of our implementation goes into the spec tree, we 
would not have a modules tree at all.


  * Dain Sundstrom
  * Partner
  * Core Developers Network

View raw message