Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 209.147.126.92 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com)
Message-Id: <959A4712-375F-46FB-A221-C6C2096C1668@topiatechnology.com>
From: Michael McGrady <mmcgrady@topiatechnology.com>
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <494FC5FA.8070306@wizards.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:06:27 -0800
References: <964EAC824495234A86F3C47DA8BD8AAD17750A@sucden-exch.sucden.co.uk>
 <B8B3393E-EAC4-4D62-8940-B25AA07FB6CE@topiatechnology.com>
 <caf30e2a0812202308o12915a5ei9a5137a0583517b7@mail.gmail.com>
 <1FD0F33B-B582-4EF7-BF7E-47096455F83F@topiatechnology.com>
 <caf30e2a0812202349t345f1f82j6012b7aa6f158b6d@mail.gmail.com>
 <B5A81CB0-EE33-4D2F-A81F-DDECA0508EAC@topiatechnology.com>
 <caf30e2a0812210510k587e827dtbc2b16e98865a2a2@mail.gmail.com>
 <D310FCF7-3EB8-4357-9C33-29CBC92102C4@topiatechnology.com>
 <bb2708720812220609p135fe774m82414e4525fa0715@mail.gmail.com>
 <8FDADFAF-1075-458C-97B8-20C474CCB041@topiatechnology.com>
 <caf30e2a0812220804m79c6b812v4a3af8d5f37d49f0@mail.gmail.com>
 <61880767-1207-4FC3-ABDE-60067D5CD472@topiatechnology.com>
 <494FC5FA.8070306@wizards.de>


On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Holger Hoffst=E4tte wrote:

> Michael McGrady wrote:
>> No problem with them being bad.  I agree.
>
> huh? Michael, no offense but you keep contradicting yourself. :(

I am not trying to lay down a final solution here but to discuss =20
issues.  I was looking at one and let the other slip out the backdoor, =20=

somewhat like the proverbial picture of keeping balloons under water.  =20=

So, I was trying to emphasize the need to have JavaSpaces separate and =20=

dropped the ball on realizing that JINI needed Entry for uses other =20
than JavaSpaces.  Glad Niclas mentioned the error.  Not really =20
inconsistent unless what I put down was taken as written in stone - =20
maybe soapstone?  <g>

>
>
>> The problem is that there is no natural owner for the generic =20
>> interfaces
>> other than Java itself, so far as I can tell.
>
> You seem to associate WAY too much inherent semantics with package =20
> names.
> They are not behaviourally binding, and it distracts from the much =20
> more
> important constraint of *physical* coupling, i.e. the jar file.

Yes.  You are probably right.  I do so with a view not only to the =20
physical state, thinking these divisions normally end up as JAR files, =20=

but also to the ease of understanding the system for everyone =20
involved.  The more important consideration, I agree, is the =20
"physical" coupling.

> 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.

If the only issue were physical decoupling, then this would be =20
sufficient.  I am not at all convinced that package structures =20
(naming) are as lacking in importance as you indicate.  Certainly if =20
we get a physical separation that would be a huge step forward.

Mike