Pulling com.sun.jini.start out of the JTSK - not just now, I think

[Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com>]

Hi all:

We had talked about pulling the starter and class server out of the JTSK and renaming them to the ‘org.apache.river.tools’ package namespace.

Although I still think it’s a good idea, I’ve become convinced that there are too many follow-on requirements.  Essentially, all of the infrastructure service implementations have a dependency on the com.sun.jini.start package.  Also, the QA framework uses it.

The logical extension of that restructuring work would be to pull out the QA framework into a different project, and also pull the infrastructure services out.  So in order to even create a demo, we’d have to restructure and re-release the whole project, which is not something I’m planning to take on at this time.

So, I’ve changed to examples project to go back to using the com.sun.jini.start package.  That’s still possible, since start.jar is published to Maven Central.

I’m not sure at this point whether it’s still a good idea to pull out the classdep implementation from the JTSK into a separate project, or just apply the patches to move up to using ASM5.  I’ll see about it after the examples project is ready.

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk

Re: Pulling com.sun.jini.start out of the JTSK - not just now, I think

[Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>]

+1

My feeling is that the highest priority has to be to grow the community.
If we succeed at that, we will have the resources to do the rest. After
my first days of pretending to be a new potential user, I'm convinced
that a better "Getting Started" experience is essential. We may or may 
not attract new participants with that. We are unlikely to do so without.

One or more good demos would be a major contribution, and I think should 
be prioritized ahead of reorganizing the source code.

On 1/9/2015 1:35 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> We had talked about pulling the starter and class server out of the
> JTSK and renaming them to the ‘org.apache.river.tools’ package
> namespace.
>
> Although I still think it’s a good idea, I’ve become convinced that
> there are too many follow-on requirements.  Essentially, all of the
> infrastructure service implementations have a dependency on the
> com.sun.jini.start package.  Also, the QA framework uses it.
>
> The logical extension of that restructuring work would be to pull out
> the QA framework into a different project, and also pull the
> infrastructure services out.  So in order to even create a demo, we’d
> have to restructure and re-release the whole project, which is not
> something I’m planning to take on at this time.
>
> So, I’ve changed to examples project to go back to using the
> com.sun.jini.start package.  That’s still possible, since start.jar
> is published to Maven Central.
>
> I’m not sure at this point whether it’s still a good idea to pull out
> the classdep implementation from the JTSK into a separate project, or
> just apply the patches to move up to using ASM5.  I’ll see about it
> after the examples project is ready.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg Trasuk
>