The "All in one package" option takes my preference. On 2/12/08, Taylor Gautier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There have been a number of utility like and pattern like implementations > going into forge/labs. I have been thinking about how best to organize > these things. Here's my thinking to date, I'm open to suggestions or just > voting for one of the options below. > > At the moment I know of: > > > > ResourceManager - a pair of classes that level a shared resource across a > cluster (relies on JMX util) > Pipes/Channels - refactoring of the pipe/channel idea in m/w > Master/Worker - work load balancer > > JMX Util - JMX event util classes > > Annotations - annotations > > SplitHashMap - rough equivalent of concurrenthashmap > > TimeSeriesMap - to expire items in a map based on time entries So, I am not > sure, I can argue a few different layouts: > > 1) All in one package. On the one extreme, this makes using any TC based > util class (or pattern) really easy. Until there is too much in one > package, this what I prefer, except it tends to have version creep that > doesn't correspond to relevant features - in other words a developer uses it > only for JMX, but the version bumps because of a fix for annotations > > 2) A Balanced set of packages. I would propose > > > tc-util - contains pipe/channel, resourcemanager, jmxutil, splithashmap, > timeseriesmap > > annotations - annotations only > > master/woker - m/w only, but needs tc-util for both pipe/channel and jmx > 3) Lots of little packages - basically everything in its own package. This > is my least favorite option. > > > > Thoughts? >
-- 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
