river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apa...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:24:46 GMT
I think you'll find in any debate, more scientific in nature at least, which by itself precludes
politics :-D, devoid of words, and more filled with examples of the thing being debated will
be more tolerable for those in the discussion. We can talk architecture all day long, but
without an understanding of exactly what you or we are talking about, those pieces we are
referring, and specifically what River is, will be, and everyone's understanding of those
things, cohesion, decoupling, architecture (to a degree) are all irrelevant. The needs and
requirements and what that means at large are needed first. The horse before the cart.


Wade Chandler, CCE
Software Engineer and Developer, Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, NetBeans Dream Team
Member, and NetBeans Board Member

----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McGrady <mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com>
> To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:18:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
> The time it takes to get JINI up and running is inevitable.  It is due, I 
> believe, to a few fundamental architectural missteps that can be fixed.  The fix 
> is not a problem.  It is a solution.  There are a number of people pointing at 
> the same problem.
> However, while open source teams are good at meeting systems engineering 
> challenges, they can be really bad or at least not very good at meeting systems 
> architecting challenges.  This is evident in the conversation.  You don't make a 
> systems architect in a day.  There is a reason why Congress had to mandate that 
> aerospace companies use the resources of a non-profit systems architecture 
> company  (Aerospace Corporation) that was separated from their efforts.
> Guidance based on architectural heuristics and models is not something that 
> systems engineers typically embrace without a lot of reluctance and more rolling 
> of the eyes.  The people questioning the changes being discussed are less 
> recalcitrant than usual.  I am optimistic.
> Mike
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:36 AM, Calum Shaw-Mackay wrote:
> > To my mind - if you can't get something up and running within 10
> > minutes, no amount of 'but it's cool' will save you. Jini doesn't have
> > the groundswell that other projects have for instance Spring that will
> > keep a developer looking at it and the docs for a couple of hours
> > before they get something useful happening...
> > 
> > We have to get the 'download'-'edit'-'build'-'aha this is great, why
> > haven't I used this before' cycle down to as quick as possible.... it
> > took me a week of wrangling to go from Jini 1.2 to 2.0 - quite simply
> > it's not a good sign....
> > 
> > Yes Jini makes the hard network things easier - but working _with_
> > Jini should be made easier, and quicker in the first instance..... yes
> > we have all the security aspects and they're very good.... but you
> > can't drop new people into that quagmire straight away.... to be
> > honest, I think it's scaring people off
> > 
> > 2008/12/11 Jools :
> Michael McGrady
> Senior Engineer
> Topia Technology, Inc.
> 1.253.720.3365
> mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com

View raw message