river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McGrady <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>
Subject Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:18:54 GMT
Thanks, Holger,

The idea is not to jettison but to decouple JINI from JavaSpaces.   
Similarly, in part, various Web frameworks (e.g., Struts) are  
decoupled from Servlets.  Without something like JINI, JavaSpaces  
would be useless but this is different than creating a situation where  
JINI itself, rather than something like JINI, would be required.

The idea too is not to suggest that JINI is something that needs to be  
replaced.  The idea, rather, is that it needs to be decoupled to  
follow architectural best practices and that the lack of cohesion in  
JIN:-JavaSpaces due to the coupling is not a good thing and can be  
seen as the reason for a lot of the unnecessary complexity in River.


On Dec 8, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:

> Michael McGrady wrote:
>> Thanks, John.  I agree with everything you say.  However . . .  
>> but . . .
>> why not do what it takes to split them?  Why not put all the classes
>> necessry to do JavaSpaces in JavaSpaces?  Now would be the time to do
>> it, if ever?  If one of JavaSpaces or JINI has to "wear the pants",
>> shouldn't it be JavaSpaces and not JINI, i.e., shouldn't JINI  
>> depend on
>> JavaSpaces and not the reverse?
> And how you would look up your JavaSpace "without Jini"?
> Jini by itself doesn't really do anything useful, the services are  
> key -
> but that means they have to depend on the foundation. You don't have  
> to
> use the foundation if you don't have to, though the Entry interface  
> is a
> good example for why things are (and have to be) the way they are.
> -h

Michael McGrady
Senior Engineer
Topia Technology, Inc.

View raw message