Steven Caswell wrote:
> My problem is one of keeping the design clean. My view of Excalibur is
> that it sits in a domain higher than commons. I see Excalibur as being
> at an architcture level, and I see commons as being more at a foundation
> level. I hesitate to have a commons package "reach" up into a higher
> domain.
I don't know if you can make that distinction as it is right now.
Quite a few pieces of Excalibur are foundational (like the CLI impl,
pooling, event architecture, instrumentation hooks, etc.).
Some are quite architectural (like Fortress, ExcaliburComponentManager,
Monitor, etc.)
>
> Having said that, I suspect there are packages in Excalibur that really
> ought to be at a foundation level, and there are packages in commons
> that ought to be at an architecture level. Perhaps pool should
> eventually be migrated to Excalibur. Perhaps better organization of
> Jakarta projects along domain lines would be appropriate. And perhaps I
> need to decide if a pooling package is really foundational (as I would
> label one in commons) or architectural (as I would label one in
> Excalibur) and have my application architecture based on the most
> appropriate domain. Perhaps the current reorg of Excalibur will make it
> easier for me to do this.
I hope we get done soon :)
>
> However, for the present, I would like to make the pooler I'm better by
> adding statistics gathering. And for the present, the most expedient way
> I see to do that is the implementation I proposed.
Oh well,
I was trying to save you alot of work. The Instrumentation package is
really great stuff IMNSHO--and its not too hard to use.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
