On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I think we need to decide to do a full conversion or just leave it
> for 1.0. If we are doing a full conversion, we need to come to
> agreement on GBeanName and the query system.
What's the issue around the query system?
Aaron
> On Aug 27, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
>
