|
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the info. In that case, I will look into getting RA going for
openjms. This will be the "dummy" RA that can be used for testing the app
server's contract's implementation once the infrastructure is in place.
I was intrigued by one of your statements:
"Personally, I don�t think the CCI offers much value. Most Ras
will have very specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting
it."
Is the variability in API ok as the code
will be derived at deployment time with the help of some tools which will hide
the custom API from source code? Also, what happens to two tier clients ( Should
we leave them out altogether since this is as bad as mixing DB calls in a JSP) ?
Do we assume that these clients will talk to the App server?
Thanks.
Kamesh
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 2:23
AM
Subject: Re: Axioms for JCA
implementation
My 2 cents ...
On 8/24/03 11:46
PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"kamesh kompella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
There
are some tests in place already under the
incubator-geronimo\specs\j2ee-connector\src\test directory. However,
these are against the classes that are specified in the spec. Beyond
these, as I see it, one can write all the tests one wants, (as they will be
testing the interfaces) but the more important path of figuring out
what's to be done to make the implementations concrete has to be tread.
There are several gaps in the connector specification that will need to be
filled in. These are left out for the implementation. Further, we need to
figure out the axioms for the system.
- What can we assume and program
against? In other words, what are the givens and what is it we are trying
to accomplish?
Support for arbitrary JCA 1.5 connectors
(resources).
2. Are we going to provide hooks
to let individual RAs or are we not going to do any implementation there at
all? In fact, what is the purview of this project vis-a-vis the
implementation? Are we going to limit ourselves to simply implementing the
contract from the app server side? I do realize that providing an
implementation for each EIS there is, is
hard.
At a
minimum we should provide a JCA RA for OpenJMS. This will allow us to use that
impl for MDBs and as the default JMS provider. Last time I checked, the JMS
API wasn�t explicitly aligned with JCA 1.5, but I don�t think that will be a
problem to work around.
3. The spec does not require
that the CCI need be supported. In the light of this information, are we
planning on evolving an API?
Personally, I don�t think the CCI offers much value.
Most Ras will have very specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting
it.
4. In any case, we will need
to write dummy RAs that will ensure that our tests run. We will also need to
supply other components that will become a reality eventually when other
groups fill in.
I recall having have heard
certain other ideas that are outside the scope of the spec per se but seem
to be the responsibility of the implementation group. I was wondering if
anybody can fill me in on these.
In short, since
this is a spec that is pretty much laid out, with most of the work being
done by the third parties or first parties which ever you feel like calling
it, I see little reason for not getting the ball rolling. This is, of
course, my 2 cents, and I could be splashing my ignorance for all and sundry
to wallow in. If that is the case, please enjoy the humor I provided and
don't forget to mail me the check. :)
I would advise that we wait until the core
architecture of Geronoimo is established. There is still debate about how the
kernel should be implemented, and this will have a direct impact on the JCA
support in Geronimo. That said, I don�t think there is any harm in
getting started on the dummy RAs (one sync and the other async) since this
will take some time and will be extremely useful for testing once development
does begin.
-k
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Faiz
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
<mailto:'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject:
Newcomers being useful
Hi,
I'm
another newcomer. When time permits, I think it would be helpful to give
newcomers a clearer insight into what is needed for the project. For
example, I'd be happy to write unit tests but how do I know that another
developer is not doing the same thing at the same time somewhere else? On
the other hand, if someone needs a hand with something like that, please
let me know.
I'm
looking forward to Alex Rupp's design documents
...
My
current goal is to keep an up to date build, learn the design, etc..
Hopefully, when things settle down, it will become clearer for the
uninitiated how to participate.
Regards,
Nick Faiz.
-----Original Message-----
From: Siva
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'z!���T(kl^�N]
Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003
4:40 AM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Contribute [Was Re: Who are working on the JCA integration
part]
IMO,the best way to start
contributing is to read the codebase and write unit tests for it.This way
you can start understanding the
system and
help the system evolve towards a TDD.
Siva
----- Original Message
-----
From: kamesh kompella
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003
12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Who are working
on the JCA integration part
Hi,
I am interested in contributing. I
have added my name and I was perusing through the cvs. Can somebody let
me know the current status and where I can jump
in?
Thanks.
Kamesh
|
