harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Stop this framework/modularity madness!
Date Tue, 17 May 2005 08:59:17 GMT
Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> Making Harmony modular enouth to be kind of a JVM framework cannot be
> done before having a working JVM. There is a lot of literature about
> how frameworks should emerge from continuous design and development.

There's a lot of literature about all aspects of development that has 
been gleefully ignored at the ASF :-)

> This must not be the focus until required, so no JIT plugable layer
> until someone tries to write another JIT for Harmony (emphasis on
> another).
> 
> Creating such is a big chalenge, to guess what spots need to flexible
> and the others that don't. Guess what, people often make bad guesses
> about these and in the end we have a very complex design with a lot of
> shortcomings.

There's a difference between having a framework and making the detailed 
decisions about where flexibility is required.

IMO, a good framework lets you change your mind about where the hooks 
are with ease. The system we use for hooks in httpd 2.0 is an example 
(ok, I'm biased, I wrote it).

http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/developer/hooks.html

explains hooks, but there's also another related facility - optional 
functions - these are functions provided by modules that may or may not 
be present. They're rather like hooks, except there's only one of them 
(if you see what I mean). There is doxygen documentation but it seems 
not to be online :-(

BTW, what that documentation doesn't make clear is that hook code is 
type-safe throughout (except in the core implementation of the hook 
handling code itself, of course).

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Mime
View raw message