[Red5] serverside api

[Luke Hubbard (luke@codegent.com)]

Hi Dominick,

I don't think we should copy them right now. We are not writing a straight
port of fcs. Red5's design should evolve. We should look at what these
objects do and implement our own as we go. We need domain object model, but
that is separate to things like (IFile, ILoadVars, ILog, IXmlSocket, etc).
As discussed we can have a red5 compatibility layer later. Lets not let fcs
dictate out design at this stage. Otherwise we will end up with fcs.

If anywhere i would make it explicit.
org.red5.server.compat.fcs

Just my thoughts,
-- Luke

On 10/3/05, Dominick Accattato <daccattato at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> my initial thinking was that the server package was more for things
> specific to the running of the server and the connections (session.java,
> standalone.java, server.java).. and that the serverside api's were domain
> objects that could be used by serverside scripting. However i didn't commit
> to anything cause I wasn't sure. If you all think that these make sense in
> the org.red5.server package, then its settled. I'll just place them in the
> org.red5.server package and if they don't make sense later on, as you
> said, we will refactor.
>
> On 3 Oct 2005 00:49:39 -0000, grant at bluetube.com < grant at bluetube.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > FCS does not have any copyright on the names you have used..
> >
> > I am a little worried about a package called "serverside" as this is not
> > a name I would normally use in a package, can you tell me why they are not
> > under 'server' ?
> >
> > having said that we will go through many more re-factors and the project
> > continues..
> >
> > Grant.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dominick Accattato daccattato at gmail.com
> > To: Red5 at osflash.org
> > Sent: 10/2/05 7:17 PM
> > Subject: [Red5] serverside api
> >
> > > Does anyone have any thoughts to the attached screenshot. The package
> > name
> > > is:
> > >
> > > org.red5.server.serverside. Much of what I have in there are just
> > interfaces
> > > to define the api. Should this be a task that we commit, or are some
> > of us
> > > skeptical about using fcs naming on our objects?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Red5 mailing list
> > > Red5 at osflash.org
> > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Red5 mailing list
> Red5 at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/red5_osflash.org/attachments/20051003/100d5041/attachment.htm