geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Date Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:18:17 GMT
That all sounds cool with me.

Going forward we might want to have a sandbox area of CVS where we can 
put experimental code using any old name (user name, project name or 
whatever) then we can all kick the tyres a little and decide which 
direction to go in.


On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 07:52  pm, David Jencks wrote:

> Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations 
> of the JCA ConnectionManager.  We haven't been able to convince each 
> other of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some 
> broader community review and input.  We also need an easier way to 
> further develop our ideas in public.
>
> What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into 
> each.  I'd like some advice on what to call the branches.  Here are a 
> couple of ideas:
>
> 1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and 
> mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
>
> J2EECA_PARTITION
>
> and
>
> J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
>
> 2.  Use our initials...
>
> J2EECA_GD
>
> and
>
> J2EECA_DJ
>
> I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call 
> it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java 
> Cryptography Architecture).
>
> If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll 
> use proposal (1).  After checking in the code I'll explain more why I 
> like my proposal better.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> /**********************************
> * David Jencks
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network
> * http://www.coredevelopers.net
> **********************************/
>
>

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Mime
View raw message