> From: Costin Manolache > > So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use "evolution" :-). A change in > the OO model ( if needed ) or fixing/improving the current one is not > as big change as it seems - it's mostly in initialization code. >
How about 'revolution'? On the other hand how does the evolution differs from revolution? > Javaspaces, other protocols, other transports and other > servers can be > added at any time - but I think it would be vital to _add_ them to an > existing base instead of adding yet another new connector. > I hate the word connector. I would like to name that new thing integrator (jakarta-tomcat-integrator, how that sounds?) It would IMO better describe that new approach (at least the one I have on my mind). and... If we don't put ourselfs out from 'reusable' concept, nothing new will ever be done thought. Trying to reclyle something, as you nicely said "stable and done", is poinntless from the '(r)evolution' perspective. Either we'll do (like Monty Pyton's said) something completely different, or we'll be once again asking ourselfs the same questions for year or so, and the guys will still use the JK or swith to something else. MT. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
