> > Proposed architecture > > - Launchers: exist as today > > - OS functionality > > - ProcessLauncher, (our ProcessBuilder) > > - Execute (or Executor?): Flexible, we use it to tie together the > > various concepts in the execute() call (stream management, process > > management, process building, etc...) > > - Exec (or ??) makes it easy to use Execute/or. > > I'm missing the difference between Exec and Executor - but otherwise agree.
Exec was deemed to be an object that makes it easy to use the Executor for simple use cases, while Executor was more flexible. > > > The architecture doesn't need to be very different from what it is today. > > In fact I think it can be achieved by refactoring the current code. I like > > that. > > I'd like to have some clean interfaces even if they are similar. > > I think we should use interfaces with an implementation so we can later > do what Dion suggested at one point - a "remote exec" implementation. I'd rather have implementations then we add an interface in a later version if we need a remote exec. Jerome, trying to use less interfaces --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
