[DISCUSS] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Was there a separate DISCUSS thread on this.  Looks like an  
interesting idea but I'm having trouble digging through the volumes  
of e-mail and the two sentences below don't help me understand the  
depth of the issues.   Is there one thread I can look at or is it  
really a mosaic of different threads?  Sounds more like a revolution.

On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> The current model is based on simple POJOs. Sebastien has proposed  
> rewriting the configuration model to be based on interfaces with  
> separate implementation and factory classes. This will have a major  
> impact on the kernel code and all extensions. This vote is not  
> about what is in the model, it's is about how the model itself is  
> implemented.
>
> [ ] +1 we should do this
> [ ] -1 keep things as they are
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces

[Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>]

On Mar 20, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> Was there a separate DISCUSS thread on this.  Looks like an  
> interesting idea but I'm having trouble digging through the volumes  
> of e-mail and the two sentences below don't help me understand the  
> depth of the issues.   Is there one thread I can look at or is it  
> really a mosaic of different threads?  Sounds more like a revolution.

There was a lot of discussion on the interface/POJO issue around this  
time last year when we switched from an interface model generated by  
SDO from XSD to the current POJO one. I share Meeraj's reluctance  
about rehashing the same issues especially when there is so much new  
stuff to do.

Most of the recent discussion has been about "componentization" which  
I think is a very different issue and applies irrespective of how our  
model is written or deserialized. I tried to separate that and keep  
the VOTE thread focused on the interface issue but wasn't very  
successful :-(

Dave made some good points on API stability that again apply  
irrespective of the interface/POJO issue - changing interfaces are  
just as much of a stability problem as changing POJOs.

These probably warrant threads of their own.
--
Jeremy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org