[ome-devel] Shoola-back-end consistency issues

[Josh Moore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harry Hochheiser wrote:
> Josh, et al

> Is this one option or two? 

Two technologies. _Many_ implementations.

> And ICE and Java play nicely together, right?
Yes and no. Interoperable, certainly. But ICE gets you a whole hell of a
lot of stuff as does Java. It doesn't necessarily make sense to use all
of both of them.

And if you mean something like Java/JMS client ICE/messaging server -
no. There aren't any backbones to make that happen. Unless Chris tells
me otherwise. :)


> I'm not sure what you mean by this. In what way is MEX not clean?

Jean Marie and co. can point out the situations in Shoola that they've
run into. Basically comes down to the fact that some DB "state" changes
may come from a source other than the AE. If by definition all state
changes in the DB happen due to a module, then this is solved. Or if
there is a superclass of MEX which contains all such events it's solved.
At the moment, things are a bit twisty _as I understand them_.


> oh, yeah, agreed.  Unfortunately, we've already gone half-way on
> distributed objects. Seems to me that this is the big question:  are we
> ready to go further down that road?  Personally, I'd prefer not to.

I'm not quite sure where half way down the road to distributed objects
is, but I don't think we're there. But it is certainly something we have
to discuss.

 -J.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCzCwHIwpkR5bKmAsRArOXAJ0bcslgTtUHflkUhXf6WHvxh6oDfACgujIS
NkMgB7dXKIlhsKpw/FEj6MY=
=0K/b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----