Re: spice-netserve is now in componenthaus (and spice-threadpool)
Mauro Talevi <[email protected]> Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:59:43 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.jcontainer.interest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mike, Mike Hogan wrote: > I am getting to this only now (see your post below). > > As I see it, there are three "main" interfaces in spice-netserve: > ConnectionManager, SocketFactory and ServerSocketFactory. The other > interfaces are secondary and exist only to help the primaries do their > stuff. So to answer your question below, ComponentHaus will index these > main interfaces separately and allow users to find them independently. > However, if a user selects two or more of these work interfaces from > spice-netserve for download, the user will get only one jar. > > Its hard to explain - its better to see it in action. > > Go here: http://64.4.141.60/componenthaus/searchComponents.action > > and search for "manage connections". You will see results for > ConnectionManager. > > I believe this is the way people will search for components: by searching on > a phrase like "copy a file" or "manage connections" or "perform an internet > search using google". Following on from that, I believe that a Plain Old > Java Method is a find way to model the service(s) provided by a component > (eventually it must get down to a method call), so thats what is provided in > the search results page. > > What do you reckon? > looks very good :-) one change I would still recommend is to clarify better what is an interface and what is a component. Eg, in a search for manage connections, I would find it more intuitive to get a list of interfaces (only the links, which can be can then be displayed in more details) and to which components they map to. I think the level of granularity down to the methods on a high-level search is probably a bit too much (esp. when the components grow in number). So something like this on the search results Interface Components ConnectionManager (link) Netserve (link, download, etc) Make sense? Cheers