Jeff, Arent you doing this now with Outrigger & Rio?
Dennis On Dec 14, 2010, at 220PM, Jeff Ramsdale wrote: > I'd like to be able to work with a Space without having to mess with > Jini's service starter. If I could instantiate a space locally and > control its lifecycle in my app it would be easy to use it (say) in > the context of unit testing my components or as an embedded message > broker in my app. > > -jeff > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >> Could you expand on what you mean by "embedded mode" in this context? >> >> On 12/14/2010 11:00 AM, Jeff Ramsdale wrote: >>> >>> If this common implementation lends itself to an embedded mode it >>> would be a boon for familiarizing oneself with the Spaces paradigm as >>> well as testing. Something to keep in the back of your mind as you're >>> delving into this... >>> >>> -jeff >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Patricia Shanahan<p...@acm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> The degree of significance depends on whether it would be done as a >>>> change >>>> to the existing interface, or as an additional interface. >>>> >>>> At first sight, it looks to me as though there is a possibility of having >>>> two thin interfaces, one the existing JavaSpaces and the other a new >>>> Apache >>>> River Spaces, on top of a 99% common implementation. The existing >>>> interface >>>> would continue to be maintained and benefit from e.g. performance >>>> enhancements. >>>> >>>> If we do this, we should take time to think through the new interface >>>> very >>>> carefully, to make sure we are willing to live with the new interface for >>>> a >>>> long time. We don't want to do something like this every couple of years. >>>> >>>> In any case, I think the comments about javadoc should be considered >>>> separately. Making documentation clearer rarely does any harm. >>>> >>>> Patricia >>> >> >>
