On Dec 20, 2008, at 3:08 AM, Dan Creswell wrote:
Michael McGrady 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
So you are complaining that making use of Entry requires you setup
Jini?
Not true - the reason you must setup Jini is to discover your
JavaSpace
because there is no other mechanism for that right now. It's not a
direct result of including Entry. It's a direct result of running a
JavaSpace that wants to do discovery/join.
So it seems to me we're not talking architecture at all. We're
talking
about providing a .jar with all dependencies and providing a
non-networked lookup implementation to slot in.
And thus I claim you confuse packaging and implementation (physical
details) with architecture.
I realize that JINI allows JavaSpaces to be discovered. I think that
the discovery mechanism should be separate from the JavaSpaces. JINI
should compete in this regard, rather than be built in as the
JavaSpaces solution. The analogy with Log4J is apt, I think. The
problem is, I think, architectural. Architecture, of course, is
closely aligned with packaging, since structure with emergent
properties are the center of architecture.
Michael McGrady
Senior Engineer
Topia Technology, Inc.
1.253.720.3365
[email protected]
