Aaron Mulder wrote:
How can XBean be out of scope but modules/kernel is not?
If we're going to switch Geronimo over to XBean, then yes, it's in
scope. But the answers to my question never said that. It was
"ServiceMix and Jetty depends on it" or whatever.
XBean is a
better that, including solving a number of problems that we're
currently facing (such as, say, serialized objects). I'm eager to
start integrating the code.
Fantastic.
Essentially I asked "What are we going to do w/ XBean in Geronimo?"
That was the answer I was looking for - thanks for just saying it
plainly and clearly.
Amen.
geir
Aaron
On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to tie this up so it won't be left hanging - since Dain has already
started moving forward with the ip document in incubator and declared
his intention to commit the code tomorrow ...
My point was that this should have been presented before the vote on the
dev list ("So here's why I want to bring XBean to Geronimo and why it's
appropriate for Geronimo"), rather than it be assumed that everyone is
familiar with whatever off-list or historical conversations have taken
place around this.
I'm not against this - I was the one trying to get Dain to bring it back
to Geronimo last summer when he first took it to Codehaus - but I think
that the motivations for bringing in code that is out of main scope of
the project deserves some illumination.
geir
James Strachan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, at 15:53, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
I asked a while ago and I think my question was never answered -
why bring XBean into Geronimo?
ActiveMQ, Jetty, OpenEJB, ServiceMix are all using it as an optional
lightweight kernel for efficient and concise configuration and
deployment in Spring-ish ways. It is a very useful core piece of technology
and quite a lot of us are pretty excited to work with it in Geronimo
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
