river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: Space/outrigger suggestions
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:55:49 GMT
The degree of significance depends on whether it would be done as a 
change to the existing interface, or as an additional interface.

At first sight, it looks to me as though there is a possibility of 
having two thin interfaces, one the existing JavaSpaces and the other a 
new Apache River Spaces, on top of a 99% common implementation. The 
existing interface would continue to be maintained and benefit from e.g. 
performance enhancements.

If we do this, we should take time to think through the new interface 
very carefully, to make sure we are willing to live with the new 
interface for a long time. We don't want to do something like this every 
couple of years.

In any case, I think the comments about javadoc should be considered 
separately. Making documentation clearer rarely does any harm.

Patricia


Mike McGrady wrote:
> I probably do not need to say that this is a very significant change and should be justified
by the most dire need.  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> Michael McGrady
> Principal investigator AF081_028 SBIR
> Chief Architect
> Topia Technology, Inc
> Work 1.253.572.9712
> Cel 1.253.720.3365
> 
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG <sim@qcg.nl> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/14/2010 11:07 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> Who controls the JavaSpace API specification? Is it something we can
>>> change, as part of River, or do we just have an implementation?
>>>
>>> Should we be considering designing RiverSpaces, similar to JavaSpaces
>>> but with an updated API, including generics, more use of collections,
>>> and better naming?
>> I think we should be free to change the specifications. RiverSpaces would be a good
thing, to signal deviation from the original specs.
>>
>> Apache River Spaces would probably be the official name, for trademarks sake. But
in order to be sure, we should take this up with legal-discuss@.
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message