geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: M5 Time ;-)
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:59:23 GMT
	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).


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

View raw message