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 Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:47:27 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Michael McGrady <mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com>
> To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:15:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
> 
> Thanks, Greg.  I think your worries are misplaced.  There is nothing in the 
> suggestion regarding splitting JavaSpaces and JINI that will affect JINI 
> negatively.
> 
> There is no question, I think, of "taking JavaSpaces our of JINI".  Rather, the 
> idea is to decouple them.
> 
> Modern computing, as you know, is in large part all about how to properly 
> organize complex systems.  Two related tools are to decouple modules and to make 
> sure that a module has high cohesion.  So, all that is being discussed here is 
> how to decouple, not a divorce.  This may only require moving the Entry 
> interface over to JavaSpaces.  That "plain and simple", or close to it.  That is 
> what was meant, I think, by relax.
> 
> The Javaspace API is of interest independent of JIN, as others have pointed 
> outI.  If River won't decouple them, then that is an unnecessary limitation of 
> the codebase which would be unfortunate for a project seeking interested people.
> 

I'm waiting for real examples of what to decouple which can't be done now through no utilization
of an API. For instance, for a local space, what needs to be taken out to make things work?
If it is to be used as a local space, and that is the intent for all purposes, then why use
discovery or lookup to find it. Why not just implement it and use it directly? That can be
done now per the interfaces and abstract classes. I think this is part of the problem with
a debate. We need real examples of what can't be done now to see why the argument makes sense.
To me it isn't completely comprehendible yet, and I think because I don't see exactly what
can't be done which you are needing to do. The exact pieces in the way. Is it having to include
this or that JAR, is it the fact that Entry and Transaction are used? Those are pretty simple
classes along with Lease and LeaseMap. Is it the way things work now, and you mean to have
them work more like an object bus
 versus a JavaSpace with leases and transactions? I think we're missing the common understanding
to move the discussion forward more easily. Maybe even a simple source example would do.

Wade


 ==================
Wade Chandler, CCE
Software Engineer and Developer, Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, NetBeans Dream Team
Member, and NetBeans Board Member
http://www.certified-computer-examiner.com
http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam
http://www.netbeans.org

Mime
View raw message