Re: [WITHDRAWN] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces

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

Consider it withdrawn.

On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> Please allow time for discussion. Please withdraw this vote as it is
> getting hijacked because discussion is not over yet.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 3/20/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Raymond Feng wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Here's my vote.
>> >
>> > [X] +1 we should do this
>> > [ ] -1 keep things as they are
>> >
>> > The vote is based on my understanding of the benefits of
>> > interface-based models as follows.
>> >
>> > 1) Better pluggability for the model implementation and loading: We
>> > can easily generate the model and loading code using Java/XML  
>> binding
>> > frameworks such as JAXB, SDO and XMLBeans.
>> >
>> > 2) Better relationship between model objects: One java class can
>> > implement multiple interfaces, for example, we can use "Extensible"
>> > interface to represent the SCDL extensibilities and "Promotable" to
>> > represent models eligible for promotion.
>> >
>> > 3) Better isolation for dependencies: Other modules only have to
>> > depend on the model interfaces for compilation. We don't have to
>> > release the model interfaces if we just have to fix issues in the
>> > implementation classes without breaking the contract.
>> >
>> > 4) Simpler interface-based mocking for unit tests
>> >
>> > 5) Other projects use interface-based modeling such as Axiom, DOM,
>> > WSDL4J and Woden
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Raymond
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Boynes"  
>> <jb...@apache.org>
>> > To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:23 AM
>> > Subject: [VOTE] Rewrite kernel model to be based on interfaces
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> If I was going to vote I would probably vote +1 since I'm doing this
>> work :) but I'm not ready to vote on it yet, as I'm not sure why a  
>> vote
>> thread popped up so quickly, independent of the thread I started
>> yesterday to get input from our community and have a technical
>> discussion on the subject:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg15725.html
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Sebastien
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services  
> Developers
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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