+1
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Niclas Hedhman > Sent: 10. desember 2008 11:33 > To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Dan Creswell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Personally I think a more interesting question is: > > > > "What do you gain by not bothering with the Jini part?" > > Since you asked (take your pick); > > 1. An appealing programming model that is also suitable for > single-JVM applications, which could (IF need arise!!) be > complemented with a distributed version without change of the > application sources. > People tend to like solutions that are easy to start with and > that can become powerful if/when that need arises. I think > that the failure of the Jini folks (then and now) to > acknowledge this is one of the biggest mistakes done. The > same argument could be done for the entire Jini platform. > > 2. With more light-weight implementations available, > unit-testing of applications built-in on top of Javaspaces > becomes a breeze. If anyone claims that unittesting with Jini > is easy, please send me the abstract testcase I can use, > because I am literally stuck. > > 3. Since JINI already have nailed the "it's too complex" > coffin shut in the minds of the world's Java developers, I > think it is important that we not only say "Listen! It ain't > that hard!", but actually provide a brand new toolkit (not > app!) where the average developer after 10 minutes goes > "Cheeze, this is so cool..." and clearly sees that "Hey, I > can use this with little or no impact now...", instead of the > "Do it the Jini way or no way at all.". Javaspaces provides, > IMVHO, an important stepping stone towards this goal. We can > present the Space programming model, showcase when/why it is > useful, and inch the full-blown Outrigger into the developers > mind without him/her actively taking the "Jini decision". > > > Cheers > Niclas >
