Yes, but as the refactoring of package names has to take place, that is the perfect time to get some things lined out. I don't think things need to be in a single common package as river though. There is a lot that makes sense in a common package, but different classloaders may not like having certain things a single package split across class loaders, and putting common things in a top tier package can encourage new things to be placed there which may make more sense in a separable build artifact. Interfaces etc really need to be in their own places so they can be included more generically in case someone needs some different implementations. Even things which may not be extensible now may wind up making sense to be that way in the future. At least with that change of package names they are already changing, so a good look at what might make better sense in this or that package would be a good start to allow things to be more separable if needed or accepted.
Wade ================== Wade Chandler, CCE Software Engineer and Developer, Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, NetBeans Dream Team Member, and NetBeans Board Member http://www.certified-computer-examiner.com http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam http://www.netbeans.org ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Sarman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 11:41:28 AM > Subject: Re: Split JavaSpaces and JINI > > The refactoring from net.jini to org.apache.river would definitely cause > alot of existing code to be forced to be changed. That being said, I > personally would not mind refactoring although this does not solve any > problems, just creates more! > > John > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Michael McGrady < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > No problem with them being bad. I agree. > > > > The suggestions was meant to be understood in relation to the suggestion > > previously made. > > > > The problem is that there is no natural owner for the generic interfaces > > other than Java itself, so far as I can tell. > > > > How about: > > > > apache.river.Lease > > apache.river.Transaction > > apache.river.Entry > > apache.river.jini (service platform) > > apache.river.javaspace.JavaSpace > > > > MG > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Michael McGrady > >> wrote: > >> > >> The changes you would have to make are not the point. Either the > >>> suggestions are good or bad. > >>> > >> > >> They are bad. > >> > >> How many times is this needed to be repeated; Entry, Lease and > >> Transaction are not space-only concepts. I have already told you that > >> "net.jini" is a heritage of a organization, a business unit if you > >> like, so do a > >> > >> sed 's/net.jini/org.apache.river/' > >> > >> and you have a much truer representation of the architectural > >> structure. Moving "lease" from neutral ground into "javaspaces" only > >> decreases the decoupling (more coupling), not the other way around. > >> How can you fail to acknowledge something that obvious? > >> > > > > Lost my head focusing on another problem. Generally toss these out in a > > non-waterfall fashion but this one was particularly bad, I agree. > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> Niclas > >> > > > > Michael McGrady > > Senior Engineer > > Topia Technology, Inc. > > 1.253.720.3365 > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >
