Dennis Reedy wrote:
On May 23, 2010, at 331PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 17:22, 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?
More like "the dl-jar is only needed when the service uses a smart
proxy".
Yes, and well no. The service must always provide a DL jar in order to join the network, or the interface(s) the service wishes to be discovered by cannot be loaded by reggie. If the convention is to create both an API and a DL jar, then both of these jars will be identical if the service does not create a smart proxy. Why create 2 identical jars?
Or do you only create an API jar for the no smart proxy case, and the service
has as it's codebase the API jar (which is the exact same thing as only
creating a DL jar, except the name is different).
Yes, I like the latter option, having a newly defined convention would
be best, it leaves the door open to add a smart proxy later that
implements the API using a different communication protocol (and adding
a *-dl.jar of course).
So primarily Services must have an API jar, and a DL jar as well if
using a smart proxy.
Did the *-dl.jar came about, as an unwritten convention, or is it
documented, all Jini / River's *-dl.jar's are smart proxy's so it should
still make sense?
Cheers,
Peter.
