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 think that we're saying the same thing and that we are narrowing
things down to common terms. Do you agree?
I agree that every container has its own limit and needs.
I agree that we could change James to be more easily managed by other
containers.
I don't agree on avalon interfaces being "Container code".
I think that James is embeddable in "non avalon compliant containers" by
writing/porting few services from one of the current avalon compliant
containers and writing a wrapper for the avalon lifecycle.
In any environment James objects depends on services like
"Configuration" and "Logger" that are not bundled with James itself, but
provided by the container.
I know that a Log4jLogger exists, and it can be used if we move away
from phoenix.
Configuration could be probably provided by a wrapper on
Common-configuration and so on.
We should make 1 step at a time and *keep* avalon compatibility at least
until we'll have a working, stable, full featured, container alternative.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
