geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Date Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:35:27 GMT

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Alex_Gudanis@toyota.com 
wrote:

>
> Why don't you guys give us an overview of each approach and 
> explanation why you think one is better than the other BEFORE checking 
> in the code?

We've already had some discussion of this on the mailing list and on 
the JIRA issue GERONIMO-97

http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=GERONIMO-97

I now have enough code so that I want it in version control, and I'd 
like to extend the same courtesy to Gianny.  I also doubt anyone can 
make an informed judgment on our approaches without looking at the 
code, and IMO unpacking jars from patches is too hard.  I certainly 
don't like updating a jar with my proposal in it very much, so my 
example in jira is very out of date.

thanks
david jencks

>
> Alex Gudanis
> Enterprise Security Development
> Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
>
> Office: (310) 468-0624
> Cell: (310) 200-5876
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> **********************************/
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message