Doug,
I've been pushing for re-architecture for months now and not much has
happened. In fact, I don't think documentation is enough to explain what
I'm aiming for without at least a bit of code to back it up -- you can see
some beautiful subsystems in the arch. guide which are more or less
invisible when you look at the code!
Also, I don't imagine copying over wads of code prior to 1.0, so I don't
think there's a real problem if the re-arch. proves to be a popular
direction for post 1.0.
Please regard this as a small prototyping effort. I'm doing this in the
open rather than in my own sandbox in case others want to comment or get
involved.
I don't plan to spend long discussing this until I've made some progress
and there is something else to discuss.
Peace?
Glyn
Doug
Davis/Raleigh/IBM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@IBMUS cc:
Subject: Re: Axis Re-architecture
12/06/02 13:13
Please respond to
axis-dev
[hit send too soon]
Let me offer up a suggestion...
Why not simply propose your design w/o any of the code changes
and let people think about it? Then based on the overall reaction the
group at-large could then decide whether or not to do it before
or after 1.0. If they like it enough to do it before 1.0 then the work can
begin right way in the main cvs tree w/o the worries of merging code
or maintaining two trees. If they like the changes but want to wait until
after 1.0 then you're better off waiting anyway since trying to keep the
two trees in-sync between now and then ever-moving 1.0 date would
be a huge PITA.
-Dug
I'm confused and concerned about this. Exactly how to you expect
to keep new functional changes in-sync between the two trees and
when do you plan to merge them? I've seen project do this in the
past and it was never pretty. If you really believe this is important
then do it in the main cvs tree - if you don't want (or can't) complete it
before 1.0 then don't even start until then. If you want to play with
a new structure but don't feel comfortable doing it in the main tree
then do it on your own hard-drive but please don't create a new
sub-tree in Axis that will just add to the confusion of what Axis is.
-Dug
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Axis Re-architecture
I plan to start some re-architecture work in a separate xml-axis/proposal
directory. I have discussed re-architecture with some other committers, but
few of them are keen to do anything prior to v1.0. I don't want to perturb
their progress, but I feel some revolutionary change is required (see [1])
to position Axis well for the future.
My aim is to build up a clean collection of subsystems along the lines
described by the architecture guide but with subsystem interfaces actually
represented properly in the code. I aim to introduce documentation and
tests as I go in order to maintain intellectual control and enable others
to join in. If this remains a one person effort, progress will be
relatively slow, but at least I may be able to demonstrate some facets of a
clean architecture to guide the future direction.
As a consequence, my work on JAXM (or more accurately SAAJ) is regretfully
suspended but may need to be completed by others so that Axis can gain
JAX-RPC compliance. I don't expect this to significantly impact the overall
progress of the project as my enthusiasm for that piece of work was rather
lacking and progress was painfully slow as I hardly ever got round to
giving it time. There's not a great deal of raw coding to be done, but then
there is probably a SAAJ TCK to be passed, which involved negotiations to
get hold of the TCK and a reasonable investment of time to get it running
and more so to get a pass. I have committed a class diagram change into the
architecture guide which shows what mapping I planned for the fault-related
interfaces. This mapping is non completely obvious and certainly doesn't
match the current code (!). Perhaps a non-committer will step up to doing
this piece of work as a way of getting involved in Axis (hint, hint!) - I'd
gladly give advice and encouragement to anyone who is interested. Finally
regarding JAXM, I would like to apologise to dims publicly as he has been
the main encouragement for me to do anything on JAXM and I rather feel as
if I'm letting him down. I hope he'll understand my passion for pushing on
towards a clean architecture.
Glyn
[1] http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html#decisions/branches
