Leif Mortenson wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
This is a proposal for the restructuring of the instrumentation suite:
Current structure:
instrument instrument-manager instrument-client
Proposed structure:
instrument <-- no change
instrument-manger <-- move AltRMI classes to instrument-monitor/altrmi/server
instrument-monitor
- altrmi/server <-- two classes from instrument manageer
- altrmi/client <-- content of instrument-client
Is there any reason not to just make the instrument-manager build skip the altrmi
classes if they are not present. This is what logkit and other projects do.
Hi Leif:
There are two good reasons. The instrument manager has dependencies on avalon-framework the instrument package. These dependencies can be correctly expressed both in a build and in terms of manifest dependencies. The AltRMI adapters have a very different dependency model - they are dependent on the instrument manager and on AltRMI. By separating out the adapters into separate builds we ensure that we can introduce consistent jar dependency declarations. Furthermore, it separates the release status of the manager from whatever adapters are developed in the future (whereas the current approach forces re-release of the manager with the introduction of a new adapter).
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
