On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 12:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
We've already had some discussion of this on the mailing list and on the JIRA issue GERONIMO-97
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=GERONIMO-97
I now have enough code so that I want it in version control, and I'd like to extend the same courtesy to Gianny. I also doubt anyone can make an informed judgment on our approaches without looking at the code, and IMO unpacking jars from patches is too hard. I certainly don't like updating a jar with my proposal in it very much, so my example in jira is very out of date.
thanks david jencks
<image.tiff>
Alex Gudanis Enterprise Security Development Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Office: (310) 468-0624 Cell: (310) 200-5876
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 **********************************/
