Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 4400 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 20:27:53 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 20:27:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 85554 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2003 20:27:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 85508 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2003 20:27:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 85495 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 20:27:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO was-fw1.bpc.com) (65.247.89.66) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 20:27:35 -0000 Received: from webmail.bpc.com by was-fw1.bpc.com via smtpd (for daedalus.apache.org [208.185.179.12]) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:27:40 -0600 Received: by webmail.bpc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:27:41 -0600 Message-ID: <7E546A2B7994D3119A38009027D502CC05A70849@WAS-XCHG1> From: "Sonnek, Ryan" To: "'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'" Subject: RE: new console-swing team Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:27:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I know what you mean Allen. Although JMX is the core, there is also core "Geronimo" functionality that all clients should implement (ex: exception handling and logging). So, even though JMX is being used, we should still have a common API to perform the "Geronimo" work associated with JSR77 (which I agree would be a great starting point). That being said, I would also like to state that the MVC architechture works great for ANY application (thick or thin client), so having one common architecture to perform these operations regardless of presentation seems quite rational. Whether or not it's actually feasible is another question though. =) Ryan -----Original Message----- From: Allen Fogleson [mailto:afogleson@blackboard.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:18 PM To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: new console-swing team Alex; Well, in my mind at least (but who knows with my mind sometimes), that would be encapsulated in the view :) Al -----Original Message----- From: n. alex rupp [mailto:rupp0035@umn.edu] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:12 PM To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: new console-swing team Al, we actually do share the same model--JMX : ) It's the custom addons to JMX to prettify the output that might not transfer too well between apps ; ) -- N. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Fogleson" To: ; Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: RE: new console-swing team I have done a fair amount of swing development - although I suspect as most here I have done much more work on thin clients, and the model/controller side of things. I really wouldn't be a big fan of an swt stand-alone app (although I admit to its better look and feel) As someone else pointed out the supported OS' are limited for swt. I would disagree that the model cannot be shared with the apps. A properly designed model should easily be shareable. Isn't that the idea behind separation of concerns :) Al >>Just one more thing regarding the discussion on sharing model code between >>clients. I am bit sceptic about sharing code between the web-console and a >>standalone-client, but I can imagine that it would be much easier to do so >>with a swing and an eclipse app.