Why don't you guys give us an overview of each approach and explanation why you think one is better than the other BEFORE checking in the code?
Alex Gudanis
Enterprise Security Development
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Office: (310) 468-0624
Cell: (310) 200-5876
| David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10/14/2003 11:52 AM
|
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Competing J2EE Connector implementation architectures |
Gianny Damour and I have developed alternate partial implementations of
the JCA ConnectionManager. We haven't been able to convince each other
of the merits of our own approach, so I think we need some broader
community review and input. We also need an easier way to further
develop our ideas in public.
What I'd like to do is make 2 branches and check one proposal into
each. I'd like some advice on what to call the branches. Here are a
couple of ideas:
1. Since Gianny's implementation calls most everything a Partition and
mine calls most everything an Interceptor,
J2EECA_PARTITION
and
J2EECA_INTERCEPTOR
2. Use our initials...
J2EECA_GD
and
J2EECA_DJ
I'm also not sure if it's necessary to be politically correct and call
it J2EECA rather than the usual and inaccurate JCA (== Java
Cryptography Architecture).
If there aren't any objections or better suggestions for names I'll use
proposal (1). After checking in the code I'll explain more why I like
my proposal better.
Thanks
/**********************************
* David Jencks
* Partner
* Core Developers Network
* http://www.coredevelopers.net
**********************************/
