> On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:35 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The reason I'm hesitant to look at XBean, it seems to be focused on a single
> target (which is good for a sub-project). It would start to confuse things
> to make more stuff XBean.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by single target? I’m happy to give the
history behind XBean, but the long and short of it is it was largely made by
OpenEJB, ActiveMQ and ServiceMix as a place to share code we thought each other
might want to reuse. A lot of it wasn’t used by Geronimo till later. Nearly
all of it is unrelated and goes across the board. It’s the closest Apache has
gotten to an EE commons.
- xbean-spring = Configuration library for Spring apps that want to use custom
xml
Used by: ActiveMQ, ServiceMix
- xbean-finder = Annotation scanning library
Used by: OpenEJB, Geronimo, ServiceMix, ActiveMQ, Aries,
Netflix Governator, Netflix Zuul, OPS4j, CrateDB
- xbean-blueprint = OSGi blueprint related stuff
Used by: Geronimio, ServiceMix, ActiveMQ, Aries, Fabric8,
Osgiliath
- xbean-naming = JNDI implementation
Used by: Geronimo, OpenEJB, ServiceMix, Ode, Nuxeo.org,
Osgiliath
- xbean-reflect = Lightweight pojo creator/injector
Used by: OpenEJB, Geronimo, ServiceMix, Plexus, BatchEE,
Meecrowave, Fabric8, Sonatype Nexus, JOnAS, OPS4j,
Osgiliath, DataTorrent, more
> Plus its a kind of odd name, I'm guessing the X is for XML.
“Odd name” is a fine enough reason for me. I certainly prefer that over
arguing what XBean is or isn’t, cause then I feel like I need to give a history
lesson. XBean *is* “app server commons”. It has no other purpose than that.
There are better names. Let’s definitely use them if we can find them. My
preference would be for us to keep using xbean-* when we can’t think of a
better name.
-David
