Tom, >> I've been working quite a bit in the Commons project on the ARMI >> tool. First off, it has to be renamed - ARMI is used by an academic >> group as "Asynchonous RMI". Secondly I'm not getting huge approval >> (in one case outright hostility) there - I do not know if there will >> be a consensus of +1s by committers when it comes to move ARMI from >> 'sandbox' to 'main'. > > > I received some similar disapproval from the XML folks regarding > Labrador being positioned as the common architecture for Axis and > XML-RPC. It's unfortunate, because if we could all sit down as a > group, we could nail down a common architecture for getting all of > these architectures working and playing together SOAP/Axis, XML-RPC, > RMI, ARMI, and Labrador. Instead, the only thing I heard was "Why do > we need another broker?"
Yup it's a good point. As it happens AMRI enshrines the multiple transport concept. I could write adaptors that make use of (I hope) Labrador, XML-RPC, Axis. Of course I'd not want to take away from those projects ability to run standalone. In direct anwer to your request for a "common architecture for getting all of these architectures working together" I think the lowest common denominator is a Java interface (any java interface - think ActionListener & ActionEvent). It is that that ARMI publishes. No extra baggage like RMI. Within the context of IoC and accessed through ComponentManager it it implementation hidden from the user. They truely don't know where the remote resource is or how it was accessed. I guess Tom, out of politeness I should learn more about Labrador (rather that just hope I can write a Labrador transport for ARMI.. > Oh well. I'm going to release 0.2 today if SourceForge ever comes > back up (http://xml-labrador.sourceforge.net). Do you want to try Commons? There is a commons for xml.apache.org that is the couterpart to Jakarta's one. Regards, - Paul H -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
