At 08:19 19/3/01 -0500, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> Yep but unlike the previous situation in the new proposal the Blocks would
>> never see the JNDI Context. It is merely an implementation detail - another
>> kernel could be built that didn't use JNDI or directly used
>> DB/LDAP/whatever etc. The reason for this that it is becoming increasingly
>> difficult to follow execution in kernel. Data is placed in a position X at
>> stage Y and used at stage Z. If you don't have a good grasp it would be
>> difficult to follow that - centrallizing it simplifies the kernel somewhat.
>
><aside>I like how you answer my email before I send it :)</aside>
psychic ;)
>That's fine. If all you are talking about is a way for the kernel to manage
>itself, and not make the Context available generally, then I don't have an
>issue with that--although why use JNDI, when the same amount of work could
>be applied toward something simpler--unless you are openning up the
possibility
>of a GUI configuration/reconfiguration scheme.
thats one idea (thou the namespace may end up less than ideal from a
management point of view). However mainly it is because I could reuse the
JNDI implementations elsewhere and the JNDI spec provides for all the
things I need (ie events and attributes of context via DirContext). Besides
I understand JNDI so it should be easier ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
