Re: Re: RMI binding questions

[Jeremy Boynes]

I think it fits the rules we agreed ("standard" etc.) so I would say
yes, please do.
--
Jeremy

On 8/28/06, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Jim / Jeremy,

I put the RMIHost in the spi precisely for reasons that Jeremy pointed out.
Aslo with ServletHost already there I assumed that this would be the way we
would go and hence put it there.

So now shall I move it over to the host-api?

Thanks

- Venkat


On 8/28/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> > Not every type - just those that we have tried to define a host
> > interface for. They will be in the Tuscany namespace anyway, it's
> > just a question of whether they are together in the host-api jar,
> > or spread amongst a load of other very small jars.
> >
> > How about we say that it's OK to add them to host-api provided they
> > only depend on "standard" interfaces (such as javax.rmi, javax.jms,
> > org.osgi) rather than on any implementation of those interfaces?
> > "Non-standard" ones (that introduced a dependency on something such
> > as JINI or say a specific JMS implementation) would go into
> > separate modules.
> >
> > We can then mark the dependencies as "provided" as they are likely
> > to be present in the host environment anyway (e.g. any J2EE server
> > will automatically provide most of javax...).
> >
> That works for me.
>
> Jim
>
> > --
> > Jeremy
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]