That all sounds cool with me.
Going forward we might want to have a sandbox area of CVS where we can put experimental code using any old name (user name, project name or whatever) then we can all kick the tyres a little and decide which direction to go in.
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 07:52 pm, David Jencks wrote:
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 **********************************/
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
