Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
I do think that client needs to be repackaged as part of the AltRMI monitori.
can you explain how/what/why, the impact this can/should have on our release process, how much time/effort it would take, and who's going to do that?
What ----
Most of the discussion on the instrumentation suite separates things out such that there is a suggestion that there are three packages: instrument, the manager, and the client. This is incorrect. There are three packages - but they don't correspond to the current CVS structure. The three packages are:
1. the instrument package 2. the manager package 3. the AltRMI monitor package
The instrument package corresponds to the current excalibur instrument package. No change needed. The manager package corresponds to the current manager package with the exception of the two AltRMI transport related classes (these correspond to the server side of the AltRMI monitoring solution and should be repackaged under something like o.a.e.instrument.altrim.server). The third package is the client side of the AltRMI monitor solution and should be repackaged under o.a.e.instrument.altrim.client.
How ---
Some package renaming and some reshuffling as described above.
Why ---
Because if we don't do things we end up with:
(a) inability to build with AltRMI (b) an inconsistent structural breakdown (inconsistent because of the non-separation of AltRMI as a monitoring implementation (c) confusion introduced by package naming that carries implications that are incorrect (e.g. client is not a generic client - its an AltRMI client)
Time and Effort ---------------
Depends on who helps out and the background they have on the instrumentation package. Leo has already volunteered to help out on this - I can help - but as you probably know, my knowledge of the instrumentation package is limited (the above comments are based simply on a review of the current code). My guess is tha this can happen quickly but I would like to confirm that with Leo and Leif first of all.
IIRC fortress and ecm don't depend on the client so it shouldn't actually impact the releases of those. Right?
Right technically, wrong operationally. If we release the manager we implicitly introducing people to the transport layer and client. While these last two elements can be made available in alpha status we are still creating a context in which people will use these things and we will need to deal with the flack when these things have to be changed. So let's get it clean up now and minimize the downside.
Cheers, Steve.
cheers,
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
