Oh, and Tapestry5 is pretty high-performance, in my initial experience.
Christian.
On 5-Feb-08, at 22:12 , Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
Toplink is mentioned, but it's a commercial app, and I don't think
they'll license it in a way that's compatible (unless they've
radically changed policies recently). I'm not a huge hibernate fan,
but at least its supported. At least with JPA and decent
abstraction, you should be able to have more "swapability" though at
the O/R-M level I find it's rare to get true swapability.
I've been using and supporting spring for a long time, but after
doing some tapestry work, and re-thinking IoC approaches, I'm moving
in favor of picocontainer. Tapestry doesn't use picocontainer but
has an IoC framework that's got some similar design concepts.
Actually, that gets to another point, which is that Tapestry is
happy and easy and fun (well, T5), and since it comes with an IoC
framework that can integrate cleanly with Spring if we want that
benefit, you can get the whole kit together.
The other nice thing about Tapestry, is that several people have
made "quickstart" projects which include everything Continuum would
likely use including Spring, spring-acegi, hibernate/jpa, etc. One
could use that as a structural basis, and T5 is (currently) built
with maven, and will at least be deployed to maven repositories in
perpetuity.
Christian.
On 5-Feb-08, at 19:12 , Carlos Sanchez wrote:
Some comments
Database vs xml: definitely database. Throwing away the db access api
(JDO/JPA/...) now that it's already there doesnt make much sense.
Maybe there are implementations that use xml for storage and that's
where you'd need to look if you want file storage
Spring vs Guice vs Plexus: Spring for sure. Big community, lots of
users, documentation, support,... Specially if you want to add JMX
support (can be done really easily just with annotations using
reflection), and thinking in OSGi in the future I'm sure it will be
really easy to integrate Spring and OSGi if it is not already. I'd
start softly, just migrating thing that would require adding features
to plexus, and move from there.
I agree with Brett on having 1.2, 1.3,... it's good to have a list of
what you want to do for 2.0 but as it gets done it should be released
in minor versions.
On Jan 29, 2008 2:34 PM, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi
I started a document [1] with my ideas about Continuum 2.
As you can see in this doc, I want to add lot of things in the
next version.
Feel free to comment on it.
[1]
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+2.0+Design+Discussion
Emmanuel
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride