It's a matter of what you want to say to the users: (1) Putting it in the Javaspaces spec allows users to be (not entirely but reasonably) confident of consistent behaviour across all implementations such that their code will run on any one they choose with no change.
(2) Putting it in the Outrigger spec means users must adopt a "buyer beware" stance and understand that their code may end up explicitly or by accident dependent on Outrigger's specific implementation(*) If you're asking me for an opinion, I'd say option (2) is the right choice and it ought to be a config option. On or off, by default? Dunno, I've seen some users who want FIFO by default and some that don't. (*) In the case of FIFO, if we make it configurable but specify no default then it's entirely possible that Outrigger defaults to FIFO and e.g. Blitz doesn't, which again will surprise users. On 21 December 2010 01:24, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > MICHAEL MCGRADY wrote: > >> What is the spec that is being potentially changed? Outrigger can >> promise FIFO but this does not mean, I assume, that other >> implementations of JavaSpaces have to deliver FIFO as well. Pulling >> an implementation into the specs for JavaSpaces would, I think, be >> counter-productive. >> > > Good question. Perhaps Outrigger package javadocs? We definitely need > somewhere for documentation that is specific to Outrigger beyond the fact > that it is an implementation of the JavaSpaces specification. > > Patricia > >
