Bernd Fondermann wrote:
mmhh. I am religiously against religion in programming, too. ;-)
Earlier you proposed to get rid of abstract discussions like POJO vs.
Avalon. At least, please don't put me in a corner. This is only for
discussion.
Sorry Bernd, I didn't want to put you in a corner :-)
Alan,
I think that we should start by steps, and I'm sure we'll find a few
problems in the first refactorings. Then we'll have some concrete things
to talk about and to decide.
Removing Avalon is like removing the concurrency.jar framework: it is
a framework and not container code. If you
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
When we were looking for an ORB for Geronimo, I tried to embed OpenORB.
This project uses Avalon. Because Avalon courses through the veins of
every aspect of OpenORB, it was impossible to embed an ORB into Geronimo
w/out bringing in everything but the kitchen sink.
I
The best place would be a james-server specific branch.
I would prefer if you start from the maven2 thing. Having branches with
different project structure from the trunk is not a good thing.
IMHO if we start pojo/xbean branch it would mean leave maven2 behind.
So, my idea is:
1) let's
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan,
I think that we should start by steps, and I'm sure we'll find a few
problems in the first refactorings. Then we'll have some concrete things
to talk about and to decide.
Removing Avalon is like removing the concurrency.jar framework: it is
a framework and not
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
When we were looking for an ORB for Geronimo, I tried to embed
OpenORB. This project uses Avalon. Because Avalon courses through
the veins of every aspect of OpenORB, it was impossible to embed an
ORB into Geronimo w/out bringing in everything
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
MailImpl objects have references to MimeMessageWrappers and are
Disposable too. When we destroy MailImpls we call
ContainerUtil.dispose(mail) or if you prefer we write this code:
--
if (mail instanceof Disposable) ((Disposable) mail).dispose();
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We don't depend on the container itself.
We don't have dependencies on phoenix in our code.
We depend on the avalon-framework: think at it as a set of mostly
interfaces and basic classes that helps starting up a new project (a
common way to define
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
wouldn't it be best to POJO-fy _first_ without a specific container
in mind (a larger task on its own) and then afterwards look at all
the mature containers to integrate with?
My thoughts exactly. IMHO, if the container
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Can XBean split the configuration in 2 multiple files?
We currently have assembly.xml to declare how the component
dependencies/wiring and config.xml to fill in configurations for
that components.
I don't think so. I've had some experience w/
Steve Brewin wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
It seems that if there is one thing that stirs us up it is container issues.
At their most basic, containers provides the glue to wire application
specific objects together and provide them with the service they require.
Application objects are simple
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote:
[...]
What is a service? In James and many other early container oriented
applications it is something provided from outside of the application.
Application objects are assumed to be present and referenced directly
from
within the code. They are
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We don't depend on the container itself.
We don't have dependencies on phoenix in our code.
We depend on the avalon-framework: think at it as a set of mostly
interfaces and basic classes that helps starting up a new project (a
common way to define things).
It's the last
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
It seems that if there is one thing that stirs us up it is
container issues.
At their most basic, containers provides the glue to wire
application
specific objects together and provide them with the service
they
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Noel, your comments represent a mighty and worthy roadmap. There is a lot to
chew on, here are a few initial comments.
snipped/
As for XBean, I favor OSGi interfaces, particularly as OSGi
and Sun are cooperating via the JCP to establish what will
become the
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
Let's separate the two issues, shall we?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Maven
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Maven in any flavor, but I am willing to be
convinced. I certainly do not like maven generated web sites, nor am I a fan
of the repository system. Perhaps we could leverage multi-project builds, or
we could just improve our Ant builds.
On 4/11/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
Let's separate the two
Steve Brewin wrote:
[...]
What is a service? In James and many other early container oriented
applications it is something provided from outside of the application.
Application objects are assumed to be present and referenced directly from
within the code. They are treated as special cases,
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote:
[...]
What is a service? In James and many other early container oriented
applications it is something provided from outside of the
application.
Application objects are assumed to be present and
referenced directly from
within the code. They
and xbeans before to
tell my preference on the sandbox location.
Cool. It seems like there are three efforts that we are discussing.
XBean, Maven 2, and cornerstone conversion.
If you're going to try any of those steps anyway then we just need to
discuss (vote) wether give you repository
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I can't find many informations about what xbean-kernel is and
xbean-server is, how to use them, and more.
I've just downloaded sources from here:
http://svn.xbean.org/trunk/
Is this the current official/updated repository? I see no changes after
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
I've just downloaded sources from here:
http://svn.xbean.org/trunk/
Is this the current official/updated repository? I see no changes
after february.
that must have been the point in time where xbean moved to Apache
Geronimo and disappeared from the Codehaus projects
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
for example the parent class hiearchie for core components like
org.apache.james.James is based on classes like
org.apache.avalon.framework.logger.LogEnabled.
LogEnabled provides functionality for what is called an 'aspect'
today. modern IoC
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
by just moving the codebase into the project? what would that change?
in my understanding, a class implementing container-specific lifecycle
interfaces like Servicable, Configurable, etc. is not a plain POJO anymore.
You could think to Startable, Disposable,
to
tell my preference on the sandbox location.
Cool. It seems like there are three efforts that we are discussing.
XBean, Maven 2, and cornerstone conversion.
If you're going to try any of those steps anyway then we just need to
discuss (vote) wether give you repository access to work on a public
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
wouldn't it be best to POJO-fy _first_ without a specific container in
mind (a larger task on its own) and then afterwards look at all the
mature containers to integrate with?
My thoughts exactly. IMHO, if the container makes you do weird things
with your design at
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I currently don't have an opinion on what it is better for us between
j2ee, OSGi, XBean, Phoenix, put what you want here, but I think
that we should choose one. This is way I'm really interested in
pro/cons of XBean.
AFAIK, XBean is to become
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
wouldn't it be best to POJO-fy _first_ without a specific container in
mind (a larger task on its own) and then afterwards look at all the
mature containers to integrate with?
My thoughts exactly. IMHO, if the container makes you do weird
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Can XBean split the configuration in 2 multiple files?
We currently have assembly.xml to declare how the component
dependencies/wiring and config.xml to fill in configurations for that
components.
I don't think so. I've had some experience w/ having deps and configs
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I currently don't have an opinion on what it is better for us between
j2ee, OSGi, XBean, Phoenix, put what you want here, but I think
that we should choose one. This is way I'm really interested in
pro/cons of XBean.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
It seems that if there is one thing that stirs us up it is container issues.
At their most basic, containers provides the glue to wire application
specific objects together and provide them with the service they require.
Application objects are simple POJOs that are both
Steve Brewin wrote:
I don't see a lot of issues raised around the build procedure. What do you see
as the costs and benefits involved in making the change?
Well, I worked on james the last year and I made only minor patches to
the build.xml because it took time to understand where to change
of the James PMC about maven2 and xbeans before to
tell my preference on the sandbox location.
Cool. It seems like there are three efforts that we are discussing.
XBean, Maven 2, and cornerstone conversion.
Regards,
Alan
Alan D. Cabrera wrote, On 4/6/2006 8:52 AM:
Stefano Bagnara wrote, On 4/5/2006 3:19 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that what the work will entail is POJO-ifying James. XBean
is just a way of stitching the POJOs in an IOC type of way. I think
that one could add some OSGi adapters on
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 3:34 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:55 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
Cool. So what is your opinion of Maven 2 and XBean?
Two separate issues.
I don't see a lot of issues raised around the build procedure. What
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
It would make sense if I did this in a sandbox. Would it be ok if I had
a little corner to play
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
In general, I'd like the idea of James becoming more Container agnostic
very much
To: James Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2 and XBean
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is
to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
In general, I'd like the idea
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to
maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
You might want to solicit comments before you do the work if you are exploring
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
I think that you should try to split the 2 processes (maven2 / xbean).
Our
Bernd Fondermann wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:08 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2
and XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to convert a small piece and solicit comments.
In general, I'd like the idea
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:55 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to
maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
You might want to solicit
Stefano Bagnara wrote, On 4/5/2006 2:07 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2
and XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to convert a small piece and solicit comments.
I think that you should try to split
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that what the work will entail is POJO-ifying James. XBean is
just a way of stitching the POJOs in an IOC type of way. I think that
one could add some OSGi adapters on top, if one wanted to. The nice
thing about this way of organization is that one does not
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:55 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to
maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments
46 matches
Mail list logo
