I think we still have the same problem of piling everything into one
project. We may wind up with a project having only one class (the
interface) but this may be the best solution since it avoids having
people update the Tuscany namespace with their extensions.
Jim
On Aug 27, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Would host-api be the right place for RMIHost?
--
Jeremy
On Aug 27, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
I came across a couple of things related to the RMI binding today.
Venkat, when you get a chance, could you take a look at these?
- Shouldn't RMIHost be in a separate extension package other than
SPI? This question relates to bindings in general. I would like to
avoid changing SPI for every new type of host provider we have.
- The RMI exception hierarchy should extend from
TuscanyRuntimeException, TuscanyException, or an SCA exception if
application code is involved (e..g RemoteServiceException).
Examples can be found at:
http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/codeguidelines.html#Exception%
20Handling
- There are a couple of PMD violations in the binding package.
When you get a chance, can you take care of them? (mvn -Psourcecheck)
Thanks,
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
