RE: [Proxool-developer] configuration via properties file

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 01:45, Christian Nedregård wrote:

> No prob. I can use delegation. Would you mind me renaming XMLConfigurator
> SAXConfigurator?

Go ahead. Nobodies using it yet anyway. (Or, at least, if they are they
must be disappointed because it doesn't work yet).

> Maybe this is also the time to factor out some sub-packages like
> org.logicalcobwebs.proxool.delegate, org.logicalcobwebs.proxool.driver and
> org.logicalcobwebs.proxool.configuration? 

What goes in delegate?

> This would break backwards compatibility. 

Depends what you move. I think it would be reasonable to leave all the
classes mentioned in the Simple API where they are. If you want to move
the configuration classes into a sub-pacakge then it should have no
effect.

The other reason why the classes are all in one package is because of
the limitations of Java's modifiers. I know this is a clumsy approach
but it works well with small projects like this. You'll notice that most
of the classes don't have public access; this makes it obvious which
classes are there for users to play with and which ones are for Proxool
use only. The ProxoolDriver has to be public, as does the ProxoolFacade
- but other than that you just get a few interfaces to use. (Note,
ConnectionResetter is incorrectly public in 0.5).

> It might suggest that we move the project
> status from 'production/stable' to 'alpha'. 

That might be a bit worrying for people who already use it in
production! As long as you can handle the simple API
(http://proxool.sourceforge.net/api/index.html) remaining where it is
then I don't see why it is necessary.

> Could I also suggest a rename of VirtoolDriver? It's a cool sounding name,
> but it doesen't say much about what the class actually is.
> In fact, I don't really know what it is even after looking at the code and
> JavaDoc ;)

Yeah, it is a crap name :) It probably shouldn't be in the main tree at
all because it's just an experimental component. Not sure where to put
it really: either a cvs branch or a java-exp source tree?  Even better,
make it part of a new project within Proxool. I suppose if someone grabs
the latest code it looks bad if there is an incomplete class there.
There is so little code done in VirtoolDriver I might just delete it for
now.

> It's unfinished non? 

I think barely started is a better description.

> Is it meant just to be a load balancer, or should it
> support various switching scheemes (like switching at certain times, or
> after a certain number of usages)?

Simple load balancer. At least at first. Maybe this should become a
post-1.0 task. It still requires a lot of work and it would be silly to
hold up 1.0 because of it.

Bill