On 2/18/07, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> On 2/16/07, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/15/07, David Woldrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Robert,
> > > >
> > > > Ok, fair enough. Well, honestly for starters, I would love
> > > to deploy
> > > > James as a monolithic Enterprise App or Web App if we could
> > > work out the
> > > > lifecycle issues (meaning System.exit() isn't the only way
> > > to achieve
> > > > orderly server shutdown.) It's been awhile since I looked
> > > deep enough
> > > > at that code to say whether that problem has already
> been solved or
> > > > not. So, if I could get that, it would totally solve
> my short term
> > > > itch. If you think that that's a rabbit hole not worth
> > > diving into, I
> > > > will trust your judgement. But, if it is, I'd like to
> > > tackle that first
> > > > and get it overwith.
> > >
> > > i really think that the best approach would be to deploy
> JAMES as a
> > > service available to enterprise applications rather than as an
> > > enterprise application. so, i prefer the idea of deployment as a
> > > plugin but i'm not a geronimo guru. i think that the
> first step should
> > > be to ask the geronimo team whether this would be the
> best approach.
> > > this probably means posting something appropriate to the dev list.
> > >
> > > for connectivity to the JAMES service, this is where i think that
> > > service bus and JCA ideas are powerful. rather than
> thinking about an
> > > EJB, multiple transport mechanisms would be powerful:
> EJB, WS, JMS,
> > > JCA and so on. adopting a bus might give a lot of
> benefits for very
> > > little effort.
> > >
> > > - robert
> >
> > I agree "that the best approach would be to deploy JAMES as
> a service
> > available to enterprise applications", particularly
> connected via a JCA.
> > This would allow James to be connected to any modern J2EE
> server or a JCA
> > aware service bus. In contrast, a Geronimo plug-in would
> only be useful
> > within Geronimo.
> >
> > The JCA approach is also a more realistic goal as it would
> entail much less
> > work!
>
> serving SMPT, news, IMAP and so on requires sockets serving, thread
> pools and access to the file system. i'm not sure whether this breaks
> the JCA contract but i worry that it wouldn't make JAMES a good JCA
> citizen.
None of the above neccesarily breaks the JCA contract. When a JCA is
connected to a remote application, the remote application can acquire and
consume whatever resources it wishes. There is no problem as its running in
another JVM to the appserver. When a JCA is connected to a local application
it must obey the J2EE rules which is short means delegating acquisition of
resources to the appserver and consuming them via the JCA management
interfaces.
+1
This is why don't see a JCA connected remotely to James as being too much
work. It would be a good first step.
another advantage is that this would not require modularisation but it
depends on whether david fancies taking this on...
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
