On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
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.
Never?
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.
On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:57 AM, James Strachan wrote:
It is a very useful core piece of technology
and quite a lot of us are pretty excited to work with it in Geronimo
What's not plain and clear about this?
While I don't think there is much upside to continuing this thread
since I already thanked Aaron for being clear and direct and this
finally achieves what I had hoped for last summer (XBean back in
Geronimo) I'll note that the full response from James was :
"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"
I think the part you omitted was important - I read it to be more
about the fact that since it's used by ActiveMQ, OpenEJB and
ServiceMix, he was excited to keep working with it in that context
here in Geronimo.
I see your frame of reference now. Thanks.
Sorry about that. If this still not clear to you, I'm happy to
state :
When I asked for a public statement of intent
after the vote was already tallied, I did
misunderstand James' answer to mean something
different than "we're going to switch the Geronimo
kernel over to XBean". I apologize for the
misunderstanding.
That is the intent, certainly. The actual "how" is very likely to
yield much more discussion :)
I hope this puts this finally to rest.
Works for me.
-David
