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
