Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Feb 8, 2008 10:33 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny Angus ha scritto:
Get it now?
No. What is the problem in redeploying all the processors every time you
need to redeploy one of them? You will have to stop the spoolmanager
thread anyway,
On Feb 8, 2008 10:33 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danny Angus ha scritto:
> > On Feb 5, 2008 3:09 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure I understand the advantages of the redeploy of a single
> >> processor.
> >
> > Processors are bigger than colle
Danny Angus ha scritto:
On Feb 5, 2008 3:09 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the advantages of the redeploy of a single
processor.
Processors are bigger than collections of mailet/matchers, they can
invoke one another and can be implemented in differen
On Feb 5, 2008 3:09 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the advantages of the redeploy of a single
> processor.
Processors are bigger than collections of mailet/matchers, they can
invoke one another and can be implemented in different ways, e.g.
jsieve.
Th
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
stefano is right that given our current COP, SpoolManager would have
to be redeployed
noel and danny are right that for reployment to work elegantly, the
level of granularity should be the processor
I'm not sure I understand the advantages of the redeploy of a
On Feb 5, 2008 1:41 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danny Angus ha scritto:
> > I agree with noel, processors should be the deployable application
>
> I'm not sure I understand yours and Noel idea. Noel's message seems to
> say that I proposed to redeploy single mailets, instead I
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Feb 5, 2008 5:56 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and discard the legacy Spring code?
:-) LOL. You are trolling. Avalon is a legacy. Spring is widely used,
easy to handle, well documented and in active development.
There is no reason why spring-, p
Danny Angus ha scritto:
I agree with noel, processors should be the deployable application
I'm not sure I understand yours and Noel idea. Noel's message seems to
say that I proposed to redeploy single mailets, instead I proposed to
redeploy the spoolmanager.
Being able to undeploy and redep
I agree with noel, processors should be the deployable application
On 2/5/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> > The really cool thing would be to have each top level component deployable
> > as separate osgi bundle, so to be able to undeploy the spool manag
On Feb 5, 2008 9:01 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/5/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> > > reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
> >
> > Yes, bu
On Feb 5, 2008 5:56 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> > reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
>
> Yes, but doing so seems backwards.
Why? To me this seems very straightforwar
On 2/5/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> > reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
>
> Yes, but doing so seems backwards. It appears that SpringSource is
> conceding that OSGi
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> The really cool thing would be to have each top level component deployable
> as separate osgi bundle, so to be able to undeploy the spool manager,
> alter mailet configuration, deploy it back (and other similar things).
Mailet configuration seems the wrong place. Pipelin
> with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
Yes, but doing so seems backwards. It appears that SpringSource is
conceding that OSGi is to Spring as JSF is to Struts, and that Spring will
go the w
On Feb 3, 2008 8:30 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Spring-osgi (opposed to Spring in a web-container) is not yet ready to
> deal with custom ApplicationContexts (yet). This results in the fact I
> see no easy way currently to boot our components.
>
>
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
I'd like to try and make the spring deployment OSGi-deployable this way.
In a first step, this would only mean 'deployabl
On Feb 2, 2008 8:24 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
> > Hi,
> >
> > with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> > reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
> >
> > I'd like to try and make the s
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
Hi,
with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
I'd like to try and make the spring deployment OSGi-deployable this way.
In a first step, this would only mean 'depl
On Jan 31, 2008 4:13 AM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
>
> I'd like to try and make the spring deployment OSGi-deployable this way
On Jan 31, 2008 4:13 AM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
> reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
>
> I'd like to try and make the spring deployment OSGi-deployable this way
Hi,
with the release of the OSGi extension to Spring[1], it seems to be
reasonably easy to turn any spring app into an OSGi deployment ('bundle').
I'd like to try and make the spring deployment OSGi-deployable this way.
In a first step, this would only mean 'deployable'. I would defer
exposi
21 matches
Mail list logo
