incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Jini?
Date Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:14:33 GMT
Hi Bob,

On Aug 10, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Bob Scheifler wrote:

> Jim Hurley wrote:
>> Besides the 'name question' -- are there any other questions or  
>> issues
>> associated with the JiniProposal that we could be discussing?
> Since resolution on the name question (so far) seems clear as mud :(
> let's try a related question of Java package names.  The existing
> codebase (proposed as starting point for the project) uses these
> package namespaces:
>     net.jini
>     com.sun.jini
>     com.artima.lookup
> Can an ASF-approved project continue to use these?
> The net.jini namespace is used for public APIs that are defined
> by specifications that are currently Jini Community Standards.
> These specifications are likely to come under the control of
> the ASF project, rather than being governed by an outside body.
> Lots of existing application code in the world makes calls on
> these APIs, so having to change this namespace would be a
> monumental upheaval, in my opinion.

If you're going to continue the jini project in Apache, then it makes  
sense to me to use the package names for the specification  
> The com.sun.jini and com.artima.lookup namespaces are mostly used
> for implementations, although there are various APIs in the
> com.sun.jini namespace that are used directly by applications.

This is now implementation and I'd think you would want to replace  
com.sun.jini. with org.apache.somethingelseentirely.

> Changing these namespaces would have less of an impact on
> other Java source code out there, but the reality is that
> lots of configuration files and startup scripts in the world
> make reference to things in the com.sun.jini namespace, so
> the impact would be felt there.

If you're objective is an open API that anyone can build  
implementations for, then inventing a code name for the  
implementation might be a good idea. In fact, it might be an idea to  
split the current jini project into two (the api and compatibility  
test suite combined into the Jini project, with the implementation  
broken out into its own Somethingelseentirely project).

On the other hand, if the Apache project is really "The One True Jini  
Implementation", then calling it org.apache.jini would make sense.  
Just thinking out loud...

> - Bob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message