geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex_Guda...@toyota.com
Subject Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Date Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:07:49 GMT
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?

Alex Gudanis
Enterprise Security Development
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

Office: (310) 468-0624
Cell: (310) 200-5876




David Jencks <david@coredevelopers.net>
10/14/2003 11:52 AM
Please respond to geronimo-dev

 
        To:     geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures


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