I agree that there's a lot involved here. I'd be OK with providing the new and improved GBeanName implementation for M5 and planning to do the total ObjectName->GBeanName conversion afterward. I'd also be OK with planning to do it all in M5 if everyone else is on board with that. I don't really like the remove/revert for M5 solution -- just because the feature is not complete and perfect does not mean we shouldn't make incremental progress (and believe me, I feel like I've been on the pointy end of that one before).
Aaron On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > How about a must have to implement GBeanName according to the > > previous notes on the mailing list? > > Does this include modifying all code to use GBeanName instead of > object name? If not, I think we should simply remove GBeanName > instead because it makes the kernel confusing. The Kernel interface > has methods that take object names, and if a subset of ObjectNames > are invalid for the kernel this interface is misleading. Also the > only use of GBeanName in the kernel is within the registry code. > This means that the rest of the framework assumes ObjectNames, and > this change will make that code confusing. Finally, we have not > addressed ObjectName queries, which are a required component of the > framework and are used through the code base. This should be an all > or nothing change. > > -dain >
