On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Gregg Wonderly<[email protected]> wrote:
> Supporting RFC-119 means we need a new lookup mechanism that doesn't cause > unmarshalling. I have in mind one way to implement that on top of reggie so > that existing service registrations don't have to change what the do, only > what version of reggie they register with. > > The use of type based lookups and supporting a new API for string based > lookups with expressions etc doesn't mesh well with marshalled data unless > you segregate what should be used from what is not interesting. Jini Entry > objects can have very complex values in them, and unmarshalling is the "most > robust" way to see those types for "user code". For the Reggie internals, > the details are more visible because of how the "MarshalledInstance" is > created. Exposing those details in a way that doesn't cause "downloading" > or "unmarshalling" (which can lead to codebase contamination because of > local class uses) is what is left to do. I really liked this whole mail, and agree with all things I understand, and trust your technical know-how in those things I don't. As I said, I am not in a position to drive such effort, nor have a strong opinion of whether RFC119 should be attempted here or not, or whether an extension/complement to current lookup semantics should be done... Apache is a lot about "scratch your own itch", and not about pushing others into action for which they have no vested interest. I simply don't have River in my current work portfolio. So, by that, I leave the discussion to those who have a vested interest. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
