river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Holger Hoffstätte <hol...@wizards.de>
Subject Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
Date Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:53:14 GMT
Michael McGrady wrote:
> No problem with them being bad.  I agree.

huh? Michael, no offense but you keep contradicting yourself. :(

> The problem is that there is no natural owner for the generic interfaces
> other than Java itself, so far as I can tell.

You seem to associate WAY too much inherent semantics with package names.
They are not behaviourally binding, and it distracts from the much more
important constraint of *physical* coupling, i.e. the jar file. So a
simple decoupling into -api jars is all that's needed, and from what I
could tell that is exactly what Niclas has been doing in his branch.

> How about:
> apache.river.Lease
> apache.river.Transaction
> apache.river.Entry
> apache.river.jini (service platform)
> apache.river.javaspace.JavaSpace

And then you realize that in order to obtain a Transaction you need to
lookup the Transaction service, and in order to renew or cancel a Lease
you need to access the LeaseManager, so all you have accomplished is
moving classes around from one package namespace (net.jini.core) to
another, with no actual benefit. Which is exactly Niclas' point.


View raw message