The refactoring from net.jini to org.apache.river would definitely cause alot of existing code to be forced to be changed. That being said, I personally would not mind refactoring although this does not solve any problems, just creates more!
John On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Michael McGrady < mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com> wrote: > No problem with them being bad. I agree. > > The suggestions was meant to be understood in relation to the suggestion > previously made. > > The problem is that there is no natural owner for the generic interfaces > other than Java itself, so far as I can tell. > > How about: > > apache.river.Lease > apache.river.Transaction > apache.river.Entry > apache.river.jini (service platform) > apache.river.javaspace.JavaSpace > > MG > > > On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Michael McGrady >> <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com> wrote: >> >> The changes you would have to make are not the point. Either the >>> suggestions are good or bad. >>> >> >> They are bad. >> >> How many times is this needed to be repeated; Entry, Lease and >> Transaction are not space-only concepts. I have already told you that >> "net.jini" is a heritage of a organization, a business unit if you >> like, so do a >> >> sed 's/net.jini/org.apache.river/' >> >> and you have a much truer representation of the architectural >> structure. Moving "lease" from neutral ground into "javaspaces" only >> decreases the decoupling (more coupling), not the other way around. >> How can you fail to acknowledge something that obvious? >> > > Lost my head focusing on another problem. Generally toss these out in a > non-waterfall fashion but this one was particularly bad, I agree. > > > >> >> >> Cheers >> Niclas >> > > Michael McGrady > Senior Engineer > Topia Technology, Inc. > 1.253.720.3365 > mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com > > > > >
