You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net> on 2003/10/14 20:52:25 UTC
Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations of
the JCA ConnectionManager. We haven't been able to convince each other
of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some broader
community review and input. We also need an easier way to further
develop our ideas in public.
What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into
each. I'd like some advice on what to call the branches. Here are a
couple of ideas:
1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and
mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
J2EECA_PARTITION
and
J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
2. Use our initials...
J2EECA_GD
and
J2EECA_DJ
I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call
it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java
Cryptography Architecture).
If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll use
proposal (1). After checking in the code I'll explain more why I like
my proposal better.
Thanks
/**********************************
* David Jencks
* Partner
* Core Developers Network
* http://www.coredevelopers.net
**********************************/
Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 09:18:17AM +0000, James Strachan wrote:
> That all sounds cool with me.
>
> Going forward we might want to have a sandbox area of CVS where we can
> put experimental code using any old name (user name, project name or
> whatever) then we can all kick the tyres a little and decide which
> direction to go in.
Committers can do this by setting up CVS repositories in their home
directories on cvs.apache.org.
-aaron
Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Posted by Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>.
Guys,
How about using this as an opportunity to sit down and define the
Geronimo/JCA API from your two different perspectives so that we end up
with two pluggable impls ?
Then we have a level playing field upon which any JCA impl can play, to
the benefit of the whole community.
Just my penniesworth - I've been there with Jetty & Tomcat...
Jules
Bruce Snyder wrote:
>This one time, at band camp, David Jencks said:
>
>DJ>Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations of
>DJ>the JCA ConnectionManager. We haven't been able to convince each other
>DJ>of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some broader
>DJ>community review and input. We also need an easier way to further
>DJ>develop our ideas in public.
>DJ>
>DJ>What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into
>DJ>each. I'd like some advice on what to call the branches. Here are a
>DJ>couple of ideas:
>DJ>
>DJ>1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and
>DJ>mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_PARTITION
>DJ>
>DJ>and
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
>DJ>
>DJ>2. Use our initials...
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_GD
>DJ>
>DJ>and
>DJ>
>DJ>J2EECA_DJ
>DJ>
>DJ>I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call
>DJ>it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java
>DJ>Cryptography Architecture).
>DJ>
>DJ>If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll use
>DJ>proposal (1). After checking in the code I'll explain more why I like
>DJ>my proposal better.
>
>Interesting that you're bringing this up, David. I was actually going to
>email you this week to find out your status and how your stuff differs
>from Gianny's.
>
>I think checking into two branches is a good idea. I like the following
>branch names:
>
> JCA_PARTITION
> JCA_INTERCEPTOR
>
>I also think that once this is checked in to CVS, only then can we proceed
>with a discussion on the mail list debating the merits of each one. If
>we're debating the two impls on the list without the code, it becomes
>tougher for everyone involved to truly understand what is being discussed.
>
>Bruce
>
>
--
/*************************************
* Jules Gosnell
* Partner
* Core Developers Network (Europe)
* http://www.coredevelopers.net
*************************************/
Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Posted by Bruce Snyder <fe...@frii.com>.
This one time, at band camp, David Jencks said:
DJ>Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations of
DJ>the JCA ConnectionManager. We haven't been able to convince each other
DJ>of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some broader
DJ>community review and input. We also need an easier way to further
DJ>develop our ideas in public.
DJ>
DJ>What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into
DJ>each. I'd like some advice on what to call the branches. Here are a
DJ>couple of ideas:
DJ>
DJ>1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and
DJ>mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_PARTITION
DJ>
DJ>and
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
DJ>
DJ>2. Use our initials...
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_GD
DJ>
DJ>and
DJ>
DJ>J2EECA_DJ
DJ>
DJ>I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call
DJ>it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java
DJ>Cryptography Architecture).
DJ>
DJ>If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll use
DJ>proposal (1). After checking in the code I'll explain more why I like
DJ>my proposal better.
Interesting that you're bringing this up, David. I was actually going to
email you this week to find out your status and how your stuff differs
from Gianny's.
I think checking into two branches is a good idea. I like the following
branch names:
JCA_PARTITION
JCA_INTERCEPTOR
I also think that once this is checked in to CVS, only then can we proceed
with a discussion on the mail list debating the merits of each one. If
we're debating the two impls on the list without the code, it becomes
tougher for everyone involved to truly understand what is being discussed.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo.html
Re: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
That all sounds cool with me.
Going forward we might want to have a sandbox area of CVS where we can
put experimental code using any old name (user name, project name or
whatever) then we can all kick the tyres a little and decide which
direction to go in.
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 07:52 pm, David Jencks wrote:
> Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations
> of the JCA ConnectionManager. We haven't been able to convince each
> other of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some
> broader community review and input. We also need an easier way to
> further develop our ideas in public.
>
> What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into
> each. I'd like some advice on what to call the branches. Here are a
> couple of ideas:
>
> 1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and
> mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
>
> J2EECA_PARTITION
>
> and
>
> J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
>
> 2. Use our initials...
>
> J2EECA_GD
>
> and
>
> J2EECA_DJ
>
> I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call
> it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java
> Cryptography Architecture).
>
> If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll
> use proposal (1). After checking in the code I'll explain more why I
> like my proposal better.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> /**********************************
> * David Jencks
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network
> * http://www.coredevelopers.net
> **********************************/
>
>
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/