Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Michael McGrady > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Imagine that in order to use Log4J you had to setup JINI because an >> interface important to Log4J were in JINI. This problem would not be solved >> by pointing out that you can use JINI without Log4J. And, if someone said >> they thought Log4J was conceptual independent of JINI and should be made so >> in its interfaces, that would be a good point. It would not be a retort to >> say that Log4J would not work in these conditions without JINI. >> >> Am I clear? > > But you were! saying that Jini should be depending on JavaSpaces and > not the other way around as is now the case. Why? Jini is about > Service Discovery, and why would a Space implementation be a backbone > of that? > My argument is that River should have a JavaSpaces implementation that > does not require a network setup, as a stepping stone to lower the > threshold of River adoption. (The "First Shot is Free" comes to mind.) >
Agreed and I actally think that's what Michael wants but he's expressing it very poorly dressed up in architectural arguments about cohesion etc. > Cheers > Niclas >
