geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Date Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:57:56 GMT
Guys,

How about using this as an opportunity to sit down and define the 
Geronimo/JCA API from your two different perspectives so that we end up 
with two pluggable impls ?

Then we have a level playing field upon which any JCA impl can play, to 
the benefit of the whole community.

Just my penniesworth - I've been there with Jetty & Tomcat...


Jules




Bruce Snyder wrote:

>This one time, at band camp, David Jencks said:
>
>DJ>Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations of 
>DJ>the JCA ConnectionManager.  We haven't been able to convince each other 
>DJ>of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some broader 
>DJ>community review and input.  We also need an easier way to further 
>DJ>develop our ideas in public.
>DJ>
>DJ>What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into 
>DJ>each.  I'd like some advice on what to call the branches.  Here are a 
>DJ>couple of ideas:
>DJ>
>DJ>1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and 
>DJ>mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_PARTITION
>DJ>
>DJ>and
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
>DJ>
>DJ>2.  Use our initials...
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_GD
>DJ>
>DJ>and
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_DJ
>DJ>
>DJ>I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call 
>DJ>it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java 
>DJ>Cryptography Architecture).
>DJ>
>DJ>If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll use 
>DJ>proposal (1).  After checking in the code I'll explain more why I like 
>DJ>my proposal better.
>
>Interesting that you're bringing this up, David. I was actually going to
>email you this week to find out your status and how your stuff differs
>from Gianny's.
>
>I think checking into two branches is a good idea. I like the following
>branch names:
>
>    JCA_PARTITION
>    JCA_INTERCEPTOR
>
>I also think that once this is checked in to CVS, only then can we proceed
>with a discussion on the mail list debating the merits of each one. If
>we're debating the two impls on the list without the code, it becomes
>tougher for everyone involved to truly understand what is being discussed.
>
>Bruce
>  
>


-- 
/*************************************
 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 * http://www.coredevelopers.net
 *************************************/



Mime
View raw message