on 8/30/2000 4:01 PM, "Diethelm Guallar, Gonzalo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, where should it go? I think it could be moved under
> om/schedule/JobEntry.java and om/schedule/peer/JobEntryPeer.java
> (which means creating a new directory, om/schedule).
That sounds good.
> How about the other files in services/schedule that are not
> specifically a service implementation? (I'm referring to
> JobQueue.java and WorkerThread.java). Should these be also
> moved to om/schedule, or should they be left alone?
Propose something. :-)
> What is, in general, the criteria for this? I can see how a
> Peer class and its associated "functionality" class could
> be said to belong in om/, but directories such as om/security
> and om/user do have other stuff in them...
The criteria is that the best design wins. We don't always do things the
right way the first time.
> One more thing: is Jon's opinion enough of a "do it", or should
> I wait for more opinions and an agreement to be reached?
No way! You need to get at total of 3 votes on the list to do pretty much
anything that changes architecture. If no one responds or not enough people
respond after say a week, then you can do it and someone can then still -1
it later, but they of course need to have a really good reason. This
prevents stalls on things. Now, I would vote that your vote also counts as a
vote, so you really only need 2 votes.
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
