Re: Depending on policy [was Re: Implementation of take (multiple) in Jini starter kit]

On 16/08/06, John McClain - Sun Microsystems, Inc. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So I write to the
> > specification.  Specifications may change, but when they do, it will
> > usually be after a public discussion and consideration of the impacts,
> > rather than somebody deciding they know a better way on a Friday
> > afternoon.
>
> Does it make a difference if fixing the issue would only require a tweak
> to the space's configuration, not a change to your code?
>

Does this imply that configuration code is a lower form of system
entity than "proper" Java code? If it has an affect on system
performance (which you would hope it does..) then I would argue that
you have changed the system and you need to be up front about that.

On a practical/pragmatic Friday afternoon basis it probably does not
matter if it truly solves the issue but what happens if that config
change solves the existing problem but creates a new one....?

> > Not to  mention that from a management point of view, it always bothers
> > me if I know I'm locked in to a single vendor's product, since I'm
> > relying on 'optimizations' in that product.
>
> Of course in this particular case it seems likely that all
> implementation of JavaSpace05 would handle at least 2 entries. Does that
> change things?
>

2 is still an arbitrary figure isnt it? Whether it is reasonable
depends on your point of view - which is always good for an argument!

Ewan


--
Skype : [email protected]
Blog : http://ewansilver.com/blog
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/ewansilver

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVASPACES-USERS".  For general help, send email to
[email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".

To view past JAVASPACES-USERS postings, please see:
http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/javaspaces-users.html