Berin Loritsch wrote:
Step one: Decide what we are going to do with Instrument.
----------------------------------------------------------- <snip summary/>
I don't have a very strong opinion. I will support whatever option has the largest majority, as long as it something which will result in a release of ECM and fortress within an acceptable timeframe :D
IMHO:
- yes, the interfaces are good enough,
Then let's look at a release.
- yes, the dependency on altrmi for implementation is ugly but that altrmi is not yet ready for release IIUC so any option (release as experimental, only release interfaces, don't release) is a compromise,
Separate out the AltRMI connector into a separate JAR would work if we go for purity. Otherwise, we can warn the user if they use it that it is an "experimental feature" in the logs. I think that will be good enough.
- no, introducing yet another package location is not a good idea (ie no org.apache.avalon.ext or something like that please, we already have "excalibur" and "cornerstone" which are nothing more than "meta package names" that add no meaning besides providing grouping, we don't need yet another grouping),
I agree on this.
- sure, an alternative reflection-based or pluggable or lifecycle extension-based mechanism for soft dependency on instrument is perfectly acceptable to me, if it can be implemented quickly
I just did it for the InformixDataSource in the datasource project. It works ok.
Why do we need to release XFC now? Haven't looked at it yet.
We need to look at it. It provides the tools to upgrade an existing system from ECM to Fortress. We at least should release that part along with Fortress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
