Subject: Re: escada and jgcs
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:27:54 +0100
Hi Nick,
On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:34 , buzz lightyear wrote:
I don't know if you/others have investigated Jxta as a possible jgcs binding - the current code doesn't make it easy for Jxta to be implemented.
No, not yet.
However, if SocketAddress is somehow embedded in a (for example) 'Member' interface then the Jxta IDs - there are two primary user types for peer and peergroup - can also be embedded within a Member interface, as jxta does reference sockets directly.
I'm not sure if you need this.
Since SocketAddress is an abstract class, you can do something like this:
public class JxtaPeer extends SocketAddress {
Member id;
}
The addresses in Spread are Strings and it works perfectly. You can take a look at the Spread binding (available for download in the SF) to see how we handle this. jGCS is supposed to be as generic as possible, so we use Java standard interfaces and abstract where possible.
With jGCS you should also be able to reuse native classes of the toolkit that you want to use for implementing jGCS. For example, the Appia binding does something like this:
public class AppiaMessage extends appia.Message implements jgcs.Message {
(...)
}
The messages are created and sent directly to the toolkit without any conversion overhead.
I suspect that I will press ahead soon and modify a local version of escada/jgcs. Would you be interested in me sending you anything I do? I would be unable to update and verify the jgroups and other bindings as I don't know them. However, the abstraction of SocketAddress into a Member class should make this relatively easy for all bindings.
Great! You are welcome to send anything that you have. You can also expect our help on problems and/or questions you may have.
Hope this helps,
--
Nuno Carvalho
University of Lisbon, Portugal
