What's the other concept (besides config modules)? What do you think are the potential API audiences?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:25:00 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago Subject: Re: [tc-dev] TC system properties We should be careful about combining those concepts. Don't want to end up with a super API of a bunch of random gunk. On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Juris Galang wrote: >> I think (please correct me Juris) that the "api" consists of common- >> api, dso-l1-api, and thirdparty-api and this api is that subset of >> stuff exposed to config module implementors. > > Correct. Initially, the idea was that the API would be aimed at > config module developers, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be > useful for other types of projects. > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Alex Miller wrote: > >> I suspect the answer is yes to both but it depends what you mean by >> internal and external? >> >> common-api will be exposed to implementors of config modules. Is >> that an internal or external usage? >> >> I think (please correct me Juris) that the "api" consists of common- >> api, dso-l1-api, and thirdparty-api and this api is that subset of >> stuff exposed to config module implementors. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steven Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:06:06 AM (GMT-0600) America/ >> Chicago >> Subject: Re: [tc-dev] TC system properties >> >> Is common-API for internal API's or external Api's? >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Alex Miller wrote: >> >>> Seems like a good idea, but I would think common-api would be >>> better. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Geert Bevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:46:52 AM (GMT-0600) America/ >>> Chicago >>> Subject: [tc-dev] TC system properties >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was just reading through the source code and I noticed that the >>> system properties that are supported by Terracotta are really >>> scattered around the code base. Wouldn't it be good to create a >>> TerracottaProperties interface in the 'common' project that >>> consolidates all these property names as constants? Is 'common' the >>> correct project for this? Do all the other DSO projects depend on >>> it? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Geert >>> >>> -- >>> Geert Bevin >>> Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org >>> Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com >>> RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org >>> Music and words - http://gbevin.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tc-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tc-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev > > _______________________________________________ > tc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
