Meeraj,
My comments inline. I thought we were going to continue this discussion
back in the context of the Componentizing our runtime thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg15725.html, but
the discussion there has stopped, so I'll respond here.
Meeraj
The current model is based on simple POJOs. Sebastien has proposed
rewriting the configuration model to be based on interfaces with
separate implementation and factory classes. This will have a major
impact on the kernel code and all extensions. This vote is not about
what is in the model,
On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The current model is based on simple POJOs. Sebastien has proposed
rewriting the configuration model to be based on interfaces with
separate implementation and factory classes. This will have a major
impact on the kernel code and all
+1
I'm not sure that the proposal is exactly Rewrite kernel model to be based
on interfaces but for the sake of this vote I'm +1.
Note also that the current trunk code has been undergoing major changes
recently/currently anyway and has already made major changes to the
extension SPIs with more
by inclination would be to go -1, as I can't see a compelling
reason for changing the current design.
Ta
Meeraj
From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces
Date: Tue, 20
On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The current model is based on simple POJOs. Sebastien has proposed
rewriting the configuration model to be based on interfaces with
separate implementation and factory classes. This will have a major
impact on the kernel code and all
Hi Jeremy,
As part of this discussion and vote could we also summarize the technical
reasons for each of us to be going one way or the other. Since this is a
major decision point it would be good for everybody to know why we as a
community are taking a specific direction and helps us to get
for unit tests
5) Other projects use interface-based modeling such as Axiom, DOM, WSDL4J
and Woden
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:23 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Rewrite kernel model to be based
]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces
Hi,
I would like a more elaborate explanation on what is meant in this context
by interfaces, factory classes and separate implementations. As we are
now, our model
bridge and can't see the point in bringing this up again.
Ta
Meeraj
From: Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:56:40 -0700
On Mar 20, 2007
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:26 AM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
As part of this discussion and vote could we also summarize the
technical
reasons for each of us to be going one way or the other. Since
this is a
major decision point it would be good for everybody to know why we
as a
kernel model to be based on interfaces
The current model is based on simple POJOs. Sebastien has proposed
rewriting the configuration model to be based on interfaces with
separate implementation and factory classes. This will have a major
impact on the kernel code and all extensions. This vote
such as Axiom, DOM,
WSDL4J and Woden
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:23 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces
The current model is based on simple POJOs
13 matches
Mail list logo
