> What would be the key features that we would be
> looking for?
This is me speaking, but I am sure others feel the same:
1. Transparent JMX management of deployed modules.
2. Hot deploy and hot configuration. No more stop container, change
property(ies), restart container, wash, rinse, repeat. Gawd, that's a
HUGE PITA!
3. The use of POJOs as components would be a nice feature but isn't really
a deal breaker.
4. Self-contained deployment either via jar or some other container/archive
mechanism. Each module would have its own config file included. No
more sifting through unwieldy properties files. This also makes
updating from the CVS easier you don't have to worry about
dif'ing out all the changes you made that will more than likely conflict
with the CVS. You obviously have to perform some dif'ing, but in
smaller more manageable chunks.
Regards,
*================================*
| Scott T Weaver |
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| Apache Jetspeed Portal Project |
| Apache Pluto Portlet Container |
*================================*
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Le Strat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:44 AM
> To: Jetspeed Developers List
> Subject: Re: Service and Component Frameworks
>
> All,
>
> There is a lot of good info comparing the differences
> between frameworks at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Architecture_2fKernel
>
> Regarding Hivemind, Howard gave a presentation a while
> back, some more info on Hivemind can be found at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg08269.html
>
> It is a neat framework and hopefully the intellectual
> property issue will be resolved soon. I especially
> like the clean interceptor model. The substitution
> model would also be quite handy to create clean
> separated modules and substitute common configuration
> from a central configuration point. Finally Hivedoc is
> quite nice in providing a clear picture of the
> dependencies between modules.
>
> Another interesting approach (which is the approach
> taken by ExoPortal for instance) would be to combine
> AOP with Pico container or Avalon (Merlin seems to be
> the recommended service framework).
>
> Lots of choices out there.
>
> What would be the key features that we would be
> looking for?
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
> --- David Sean Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Im starting a little informal thread discussing
> > Service and Component
> > Frameworks.
> >
> > Currently we are using Fulcrum in Jetspeed-2.
> > While I do like Fulcrum and it has been very useful
> > for us, there are
> > now more advanced service frameworks available.
> > All services in J2 are implemented as Common Portlet
> > Services. The goal
> > of CPS was to act as a layer so that we could more
> > easily swap out
> > Fulcrum in the future. I think that time has come
> > and we need to start
> > reviewing the other frameworks and make a decision.
> >
> > The frameworks we have considering are:
> >
> > 1. Hivemind
> > 2. Pico Container
> > 3. Jetspeed Cornerstone (not to be confused with
> > Avalon Cornerstone)
> > 4. Avalon
> >
> > I really like what I've seen in Hivemind, however
> > the current licensing
> > issues concern me.
> > I also think that Cornerstone, contributed by the
> > Cisco team to
> > Jetspeed, is very powerful.
> > Are there other service frameworks we should be
> > considering?
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
