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 Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2005/08/30 22:42:07 UTC
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the
> previous notes on the mailing list?
>
On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of
> object name? [....] Finally, we have not addressed ObjectName
> queries, which are a required component of the framework and are
> used through the code base. [....]
On Aug 27, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> We use ObjectName pattern queries. If we eliminate ObjectNames,
> what will we use for queries?
On Aug 27, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Interfaces and GBean Name components. I imagine, for example, the
> GBeanQuery would take a String (interface name) and/or a Map
> (key=value
> pairs to query on). I guess the domain too.
>
> Jeremy mentioned wanting to support a "query language", which
> among other things would let you specify ands and ors and so on, but I
> don't think that needs to be in the first release.
>
It seems this fizzled out into a partial agreement that this was too
big for this release.
Is this ok with everyone?
-David
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 2:20 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the full conversion of "all ObjectNames to GBeanNames
>>>> and
>>>> all queries to GBeanQuery's" can wait for post-M5.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, you're confusing me. The message "post-M5" is exactly where I
>>> thought that conversation ended up. What part shouldn't wait for
>>> post-M5?
>>>
>>
>> This part:
>>
>>
>>> Uh, no. I think we should make GBeanName satisfactory, and put
>>> all the plumbing into GBeanQuery to support the queries we want and
>>> deprecate the kernel ObjectName query methods.
>>
>
> Ok, so what we need consensus on is whether we should for M5:
>
> 1) Complete GBeanName support and officially deprecate ObjectName use
> and convert fully post-M5.
I'd prefer this if possible.
>
> 2) Wait till post-M5 and do all at once.
this would be my second choice.
david jencks
>
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 2:20 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Ok, so what we need consensus on is whether we should for M5:
>
> 1) Complete GBeanName support and officially deprecate ObjectName
> use and convert fully post-M5.
>
> 2) Wait till post-M5 and do all at once.
I vote we stick with ObjectName until Geronimo 2.0. I see no benefit
from this change and only destabilization.
-dain
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I think the full conversion of "all ObjectNames to GBeanNames
>>> and
>>> all queries to GBeanQuery's" can wait for post-M5.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, you're confusing me. The message "post-M5" is exactly where I
>> thought that conversation ended up. What part shouldn't wait for
>> post-M5?
>>
>
> This part:
>
>
>> Uh, no. I think we should make GBeanName satisfactory, and put
>> all the plumbing into GBeanQuery to support the queries we want and
>> deprecate the kernel ObjectName query methods.
>
Ok, so what we need consensus on is whether we should for M5:
1) Complete GBeanName support and officially deprecate ObjectName
use and convert fully post-M5.
2) Wait till post-M5 and do all at once.
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> > I think the full conversion of "all ObjectNames to GBeanNames and
> > all queries to GBeanQuery's" can wait for post-M5.
>
> Ok, you're confusing me. The message "post-M5" is exactly where I
> thought that conversation ended up. What part shouldn't wait for
> post-M5?
This part:
> Uh, no. I think we should make GBeanName satisfactory, and put
> all the plumbing into GBeanQuery to support the queries we want and
> deprecate the kernel ObjectName query methods.
Aaron
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> It seems this fizzled out into a partial agreement that this was too
>> big for this release.
>>
>> Is this ok with everyone?
>>
>
> Uh, no. I think we should make GBeanName satisfactory, and put
> all the plumbing into GBeanQuery to support the queries we want and
> deprecate the kernel ObjectName query methods.
>
> I think the full conversion of "all ObjectNames to GBeanNames and
> all queries to GBeanQuery's" can wait for post-M5.
Ok, you're confusing me. The message "post-M5" is exactly where I
thought that conversation ended up. What part shouldn't wait for
post-M5?
-David
Re: M5 List Closure - GBeanName
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> It seems this fizzled out into a partial agreement that this was too
> big for this release.
>
> Is this ok with everyone?
Uh, no. I think we should make GBeanName satisfactory, and put
all the plumbing into GBeanQuery to support the queries we want and
deprecate the kernel ObjectName query methods.
I think the full conversion of "all ObjectNames to GBeanNames and
all queries to GBeanQuery's" can wait for post-M5.
Aaron