This one time, at band camp, David Jencks said:
DJ>Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations of
DJ>the JCA ConnectionManager. We haven't been able to convince each other
DJ>of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some broader
DJ>community review and input. We also need an easier way to further
DJ>develop our ideas in public.
DJ>
DJ>What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into
DJ>each. I'd like some advice on what to call the branches. Here are a
DJ>couple of ideas:
DJ>
DJ>1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and
DJ>mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_PARTITION
DJ>
DJ>and
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
DJ>
DJ>2. Use our initials...
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_GD
DJ>
DJ>and
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_DJ
DJ>
DJ>I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call
DJ>it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java
DJ>Cryptography Architecture).
DJ>
DJ>If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll use
DJ>proposal (1). After checking in the code I'll explain more why I like
DJ>my proposal better.
Interesting that you're bringing this up, David. I was actually going to
email you this week to find out your status and how your stuff differs
from Gianny's.
I think checking into two branches is a good idea. I like the following
branch names:
JCA_PARTITION
JCA_INTERCEPTOR
I also think that once this is checked in to CVS, only then can we proceed
with a discussion on the mail list debating the merits of each one. If
we're debating the two impls on the list without the code, it becomes
tougher for everyone involved to truly understand what is being discussed.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo.html
