Gary Shea wrote:
Hi Steve --
I have been studying the JMI/MOF stuff recently, just starting to get a
feel for it. Seems to me clazz and JMI have a lot in common.
Yep.
Several observations:What are the distinguishing features that make clazz more interesting for this application?
(a) It is here and now and I don't see any problems in
dealing with JMI/MOF interoperability in the future
(b) The [clazz] package is a much more pragmatic approach
driven by implemetation requirements. JMI covers a lot
more space - basically a Java API to MOF - and MOF is a
much bigger animal. (c) [clazz] offers a small and direct API
(d) [clazz] comes under Apache license
But I should make it clear that I'm not a MOF fan. Now considering that most of guys on the JNI team know me - I'm sure this email will get to one of more of them and they will ask for an explination - and the answer will can summed up on one work - *heavy*, both technically and politically.
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
Regards,
Gary
I would like to move forward with a joint initative between the Avalon
Dev. Team and the Jakarta Commons [clazz] guys to work up an
implementation of an Avalon meta model for component and service
defintions. I've already spoken to Stephen Colebourne and Dmitri
Plotnikov (committers on the [clazz] project) and there both keen to
work with us on this. From their point of view is about validation of
the [clazz] package against real requirements, and from our point of
view is about validation of the [clazz] package and delivery of a
standard Avalon meta solution.
To kick things off I have in mind the following:
* granting commit access to Stephen and Dmitri so they can work on
a sandbox project
* reciprical commit rights for concerned avalon committers to the
[clazz] project
so we can work on clazz (doc enhancement, unit test, debugging, etc)
Enabling co-development on a meta model implementation, leading to:
* validation and grounding of the [clazz] package based on our
requirements
* consolidation of current meta solutions under a single unified
object model
* capable of supporting mixed loading strategies
* capable of supporting model extension
Before moving forward on this, I wanted to get feedback from people
concerning the commit access exchange which doesn't follow the normal
model. However - there is plenty of evidence in the clazz project
itself that these guys know what they are doing. Secondly, this also
means voting here and there, so first of all I'll like get an idea of
who here are sufficiently interested in this to actually contribute.
Cheers, Steve.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
