Michael McGrady wrote: > The problem is not complexity. Most of us are very good at complexity. > I work with hugely complex systems. They are quire manageable because > they have a well architected structure. > > We can manage complexity that has a semantic base. The problem here is > that the complexity is the result of a poor architecture, structure. >
No it isn't - it's about the fact that the out of the box experience is broken and relies on everybody having a proper network setup and understand codebases (of the downloadable variety) and a bunch of other stuff. i.e. It's about the setup surface area, as Niclas has said. > The continued suggestion by those who seem to want to keep the structure > as it is that the rest just want things to be easy could be seen as a > dodge. Would we really be here if we were looking for ease and > comfort? We want performance and we are interested in JINI etc. but > also know that complexity is sometimes not necessary but just the result > of poor architecture. > And I would claim this isn't poor architecture it's about poor packaging of .jars. What you seem to want is a javaspaces-with-all-dependencies-and-no-lookup.jar That isn't architectural..... In spite of repeated claims you have yet to back them up and I consider *that* to be a dodge (to use your words). Worse you make these claims whilst openly declaring you haven't looked at Jini in depth - if you haven't looked in depth I simply don't see how you make proclamations about architecture with any confidence. Stop acting the victim, back up your position with knowledge and a decent argument. I am more than happy to listen, see my responses to Niclas which include agreement with points well made so please don't claim otherwise. > Mike > > Michael McGrady > Senior Engineer > Topia Technology, Inc. > 1.253.720.3365 > [email protected] > > > > >
