On May 22, 2010, at 834PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: > Dennis Reedy wrote: >> On May 22, 2010, at 646PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: >> >> >>> Dennis Reedy wrote: >>> >>>> On May 20, 2010, at 628PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could call it api, instead of spec, so as not to confuse the Jini >>>>> Spec? (We call River an implementation of the Jini Specifications) >>>>> >>>>> Implementation jar: service.jar >>>>> API jar: service-api.jar >>>>> Download jar: service-dl.jar >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Thinking out loud here, what id the service does not use a smart proxy? >>>> There is no difference between the API jar and the DL jar. Is the API jar >>>> only needed when the service uses a smart proxy? >>>> >>> Yep that's correct. >>> >> >> So as far as a convention is concerned here, what would you recommend? Only >> create API jar for smart proxy implementations? Or only create DL jars for >> smart proxy implementations. >> >> Seems that the latter makes more sense? If so than the API jar will always >> be in the client's classpath. Will have problems with the service's >> registration with reggie though. >> > No, this would be more appropriate:
Oops, but no. If the service does not have a DL jar, the ServiceItem will not be able to be loaded by reggie, so joining the network is a problem
