geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: M5 Time ;-)
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:31:48 GMT
I think we need to decide to do a full conversion or just leave it  
for 1.0.  If we are doing a full conversion, we need to come to  
agreement on GBeanName and the query system.

-dain

On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     I agree that there's a lot involved here.  I'd be OK with
> providing the new and improved GBeanName implementation for M5 and
> planning to do the total ObjectName->GBeanName conversion  
> afterward.  I'd
> also be OK with planning to do it all in M5 if everyone else is on  
> board
> with that.  I don't really like the remove/revert for M5 solution  
> -- just
> because the feature is not complete and perfect does not mean we  
> shouldn't
> make incremental progress (and believe me, I feel like I've been on  
> the
> pointy end of that one before).
>
> Aaron
>
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>>>     How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
>>> previous notes on the mailing list?
>>>
>>
>> Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of
>> object name?  If not, I think we should simply remove GBeanName
>> instead because it makes the kernel confusing.  The Kernel interface
>> has methods that take object names, and if a subset of ObjectNames
>> are invalid for the kernel this interface is misleading.  Also the
>> only use of GBeanName in the kernel is within the registry code.
>> This means that the rest of the framework assumes ObjectNames, and
>> this change will make that code confusing.  Finally, we have not
>> addressed ObjectName queries, which are a required component of the
>> framework and are used through the code base.  This should be an all
>> or nothing change.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>


Mime
View raw message