You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jetspeed-dev@portals.apache.org by David Sean Taylor <da...@bluesunrise.com> on 2003/11/26 20:40:57 UTC
Service and Component Frameworks
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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Christophe Lombart <ch...@sword-technologies.com>.
Just for my info, where is Jetspeed Cornserstone ? in J2 cvs repository ?
Christophe
David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Jun Yang <ju...@cisco.com>.
Thanks David for starting this thread. Emad and myself are the
designers of this framework. We hope to post a Cornerstone Concepts
paper, a presentation and demo code for you to play with very soon.
Jun
David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Barnhill William <ba...@bah.com>.
There seems to be a great deal of support for using Cornerstone as the
service framework in Jetspeed, and it does look good, but I do have an
integration question as food for thought: Shouldn't all of the ASF
projects be standardizing on either one service framework, or have an
abstraction layer for service frameworks similar to what commons.logging
does for logging frameworks? I'd vote for standardization, otherwise
we'll get hit with lowest common denominator problems.
If Cornerstone is as good as everyone says, and it is as stand-alone as
everyone says, then it shouldn't be a problem for it to become it's own
ASF project and convince almost all ASF projects to use it as their
default service framework. Another option would be to donate
Cornerstone to Avalon and perhaps have an AvalonNG that incorporates
Cornerstone for services. If ASF projects standardize on one
framework then service X written for Project X can be re-used by Project
B, given that project B also uses the services that service X depends on.
So far I've been long on ideas and short on code, but I am going to be
changing that soon.
Btw, how do I request to be assigned to a bug/enh? Or should I just work
on it and submit the result to the mailing list?
Bill Barnhill
Martin Cooper wrote:
>"Jun Yang" <ju...@cisco.com> wrote in message
>news:3FC6A088.5090200@cisco.com...
>
>
>>In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
>>Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
>>other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
>>Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
>>Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it requires
>>much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
>>great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
>>
>>
>
>I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is sufficiently
>general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind, Spring and
>PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts paper and
>presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of Jetspeed?
>
>Now that Cornerstone is part of the Jetspeed CVS repo, what is the thinking
>on its development going forward? I'm curious about whether it will be
>integrated into Jetspeed to the point where it would not be useful as a
>standalone component, or if the goal is to keep it (semi-)independent. While
>I understand that mass customisation is clearly a factor in portal-land,
>that's not the only space to which it applies, and I can see a use for such
>a framework in non-portal applications as well.
>
>In general, I guess I'd just like to better understand the relationship
>between Jetspeed and Cornerstone. (I'm not currently a Jetspeed user, but
>lurk on this list because of my interest in Pluto and its relationship with
>Jetspeed 2 - and now, possibly, Cornerstone. ;)
>
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
>
>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Jun
>>
>>BaTien Duong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is exciting. A technical comparision with other opensource
>>>frameworks such as Hivemind and Pico container by the author(s) of
>>>Jetspeed Cornerstone may be helpfull. Will the author(s) care to give
>>>a subjective rating on the maturity of different frameworks?
>>>
>>>I will find some time to look at the source codes.
>>>
>>>BaTien
>>>DBGROUPS
>>>
>>>Jun Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be
>>>>light reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
>>>>
>>>>Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
>>>>http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
>>>>http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>(PDF)
>
>
>>>>http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
>>>>(PowerPoint)
>>>>
>>>>Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
>>>>Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
>>>>
>>>>Jun
>>>>
>>>>David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by BaTien Duong <ba...@dbgroups.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>"Jun Yang" <ju...@cisco.com> wrote in message
>news:3FC6A088.5090200@cisco.com...
>
>
>>In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
>>Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
>>other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
>>Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
>>Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it requires
>>much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
>>great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
>>
>>
>
>I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is sufficiently
>general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind, Spring and
>PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts paper and
>presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of Jetspeed?
>
>Now that Cornerstone is part of the Jetspeed CVS repo, what is the thinking
>on its development going forward? I'm curious about whether it will be
>integrated into Jetspeed to the point where it would not be useful as a
>standalone component, or if the goal is to keep it (semi-)independent. While
>I understand that mass customisation is clearly a factor in portal-land,
>that's not the only space to which it applies, and I can see a use for such
>a framework in non-portal applications as well.
>
>In general, I guess I'd just like to better understand the relationship
>between Jetspeed and Cornerstone. (I'm not currently a Jetspeed user, but
>lurk on this list because of my interest in Pluto and its relationship with
>Jetspeed 2 - and now, possibly, Cornerstone. ;)
>
>
Yes, you are right on the target. I am sure that Jun would think of the
same way that J2-Cornerstone can better serve developer community by
decoupling it in some form similar to Commons-chain and Struts-chain.
BaTien
DBGROUPS
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
>
>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Jun
>>
>>BaTien Duong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is exciting. A technical comparision with other opensource
>>>frameworks such as Hivemind and Pico container by the author(s) of
>>>Jetspeed Cornerstone may be helpfull. Will the author(s) care to give
>>>a subjective rating on the maturity of different frameworks?
>>>
>>>I will find some time to look at the source codes.
>>>
>>>BaTien
>>>DBGROUPS
>>>
>>>Jun Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be
>>>>light reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
>>>>
>>>>Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
>>>>http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
>>>>http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>(PDF)
>
>
>>>>http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
>>>>(PowerPoint)
>>>>
>>>>Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
>>>>Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
>>>>
>>>>Jun
>>>>
>>>>David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>.
>
>
>
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by BaTien Duong <ba...@dbgroups.com>.
Jun Yang wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
>> "Jun Yang" <ju...@cisco.com> wrote in message
>> news:3FC6A088.5090200@cisco.com...
>>
>>
>>> In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
>>> Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
>>> other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
>>> Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
>>> Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it
>>> requires
>>> much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
>>> great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is sufficiently
>> general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind,
>> Spring and
>> PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts
>> paper and
>> presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of
>> Jetspeed?
>>
>>
> No, I don't think the intention is to bury it under Jetspeed at all.
> Jetspeed people were the first to recognize its value and it was
> certainly a great milestone in the life of Cornerstone to make it open
> source and Jetspeed CVS was the best first choice for that purpose.
>
>> Now that Cornerstone is part of the Jetspeed CVS repo, what is the
>> thinking
>> on its development going forward? I'm curious about whether it will be
>> integrated into Jetspeed to the point where it would not be useful as a
>> standalone component, or if the goal is to keep it
>> (semi-)independent. While
>> I understand that mass customisation is clearly a factor in portal-land,
>> that's not the only space to which it applies, and I can see a use
>> for such
>> a framework in non-portal applications as well.
>>
>>
> Cornerstone will be an independent layer underneath Jetspeed and can
> be used in any other project.
Bravo. I guess we all want to see the codes. :-)
BaTien
DBGROUPS
>
>> In general, I guess I'd just like to better understand the relationship
>> between Jetspeed and Cornerstone. (I'm not currently a Jetspeed user,
>> but
>> lurk on this list because of my interest in Pluto and its
>> relationship with
>> Jetspeed 2 - and now, possibly, Cornerstone. ;)
>>
>>
>>
> The relationship is simple: Cornerstone is a generic framework that
> Jetspeed can build on top of. Jetspeed is an application (hopefully a
> showcase (I am excited about this)) of Cornerstone.
>
>> --
>> Martin Cooper
>>
>>
>>
> Jun
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> .
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Jun Yang <ju...@cisco.com>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>"Jun Yang" <ju...@cisco.com> wrote in message
>news:3FC6A088.5090200@cisco.com...
>
>
>>In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
>>Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
>>other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
>>Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
>>Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it requires
>>much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
>>great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
>>
>>
>
>I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is sufficiently
>general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind, Spring and
>PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts paper and
>presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of Jetspeed?
>
>
No, I don't think the intention is to bury it under Jetspeed at all.
Jetspeed people were the first to recognize its value and it was
certainly a great milestone in the life of Cornerstone to make it open
source and Jetspeed CVS was the best first choice for that purpose.
>Now that Cornerstone is part of the Jetspeed CVS repo, what is the thinking
>on its development going forward? I'm curious about whether it will be
>integrated into Jetspeed to the point where it would not be useful as a
>standalone component, or if the goal is to keep it (semi-)independent. While
>I understand that mass customisation is clearly a factor in portal-land,
>that's not the only space to which it applies, and I can see a use for such
>a framework in non-portal applications as well.
>
>
Cornerstone will be an independent layer underneath Jetspeed and can be
used in any other project.
>In general, I guess I'd just like to better understand the relationship
>between Jetspeed and Cornerstone. (I'm not currently a Jetspeed user, but
>lurk on this list because of my interest in Pluto and its relationship with
>Jetspeed 2 - and now, possibly, Cornerstone. ;)
>
>
>
The relationship is simple: Cornerstone is a generic framework that
Jetspeed can build on top of. Jetspeed is an application (hopefully a
showcase (I am excited about this)) of Cornerstone.
>--
>Martin Cooper
>
>
>
Jun
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
"Jun Yang" <ju...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:3FC6A088.5090200@cisco.com...
> In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
> Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
> other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
> Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
> Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it requires
> much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
> great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is sufficiently
general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind, Spring and
PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts paper and
presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of Jetspeed?
Now that Cornerstone is part of the Jetspeed CVS repo, what is the thinking
on its development going forward? I'm curious about whether it will be
integrated into Jetspeed to the point where it would not be useful as a
standalone component, or if the goal is to keep it (semi-)independent. While
I understand that mass customisation is clearly a factor in portal-land,
that's not the only space to which it applies, and I can see a use for such
a framework in non-portal applications as well.
In general, I guess I'd just like to better understand the relationship
between Jetspeed and Cornerstone. (I'm not currently a Jetspeed user, but
lurk on this list because of my interest in Pluto and its relationship with
Jetspeed 2 - and now, possibly, Cornerstone. ;)
--
Martin Cooper
> Thanks!
>
> Jun
>
> BaTien Duong wrote:
>
> > This is exciting. A technical comparision with other opensource
> > frameworks such as Hivemind and Pico container by the author(s) of
> > Jetspeed Cornerstone may be helpfull. Will the author(s) care to give
> > a subjective rating on the maturity of different frameworks?
> >
> > I will find some time to look at the source codes.
> >
> > BaTien
> > DBGROUPS
> >
> > Jun Yang wrote:
> >
> >> Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be
> >> light reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
> >>
> >> Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
> >> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
> >>
> >> Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
> >> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf
(PDF)
> >> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
> >> (PowerPoint)
> >>
> >> Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
> >> Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
> >>
> >> Jun
> >>
> >> David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Jun Yang <ju...@cisco.com>.
In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it requires
much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
Thanks!
Jun
BaTien Duong wrote:
> This is exciting. A technical comparision with other opensource
> frameworks such as Hivemind and Pico container by the author(s) of
> Jetspeed Cornerstone may be helpfull. Will the author(s) care to give
> a subjective rating on the maturity of different frameworks?
>
> I will find some time to look at the source codes.
>
> BaTien
> DBGROUPS
>
> Jun Yang wrote:
>
>> Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be
>> light reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
>>
>> Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
>> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
>>
>> Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
>> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf (PDF)
>> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
>> (PowerPoint)
>>
>> Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
>> Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
>>
>> Jun
>>
>> David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by BaTien Duong <ba...@dbgroups.com>.
This is exciting. A technical comparision with other opensource
frameworks such as Hivemind and Pico container by the author(s) of
Jetspeed Cornerstone may be helpfull. Will the author(s) care to give a
subjective rating on the maturity of different frameworks?
I will find some time to look at the source codes.
BaTien
DBGROUPS
Jun Yang wrote:
> Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be
> light reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
>
> Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
>
> Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf (PDF)
> http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
> (PowerPoint)
>
> Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
> Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
>
> Jun
>
> David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> .
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Jun Yang <ju...@cisco.com>.
Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be light
reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf (PDF)
http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
(PowerPoint)
Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
Jun
David Sean Taylor 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: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by Barnhill William <ba...@bah.com>.
David,
I went to the first URL. Great resource!
From reading it and associated URLs it seems that HiveMind is for total
fluidity and Avalon is for total IoC, almost two extremes along an
axis. Based on my experience total freedom is giving most people enough
rope to hang themselves. But, I've used Avalon and haven't used
HiveMind. I like the IoC pattern a lot, but it does sometimes get in the
way, especially for very small utilitarian components. Seems like a
balance could be struck, perhaps Avalon with Eclipse style extension
points? I also have not used Cornerstone, this may be exactly what they
did.
As for AOP, I can see where it could have benefits. You can hear the
'but' coming, can't you? From what I've seen, and based on a recent
article you can do pretty much everything AOP can do with delegators.
Delegators is perhaps wrong term, someone feel free to correct me with
the right term, dynamic proxies perhaps?. I think the article was in
Java Developer's Journal.
The biggest drawback to AOP, for me, is security. I explain to any
security auditor that the binary code is rewritten on the fly as the
classes are loaded and they will fail it right then and there. Perhaps
if there wasn't an alternative AOP would have a bigger draw, but I've
broached AOP with other engineers from other companies in my
environment. They have all said that the security implications would be
a show stopper for using AOP.
Not considering Cornerstone, as I've never used it, I would say Avalon
is the best of a bad set of service frameworks. I know the Avalon folks
have worked well with the Cocoon folks, maybe they would work with us if
someone drew up a list of exactly how Avalon doesn't meet our current
needs (and by implication a list of what exactly our needs are in a
service framework). I truly hope Jetspeed stays away from AOP, as it
will rule out Jetspeed's use by many engineers.
Just my half-penny. Not two cents as I'm still very new to Jetspeed2,
Bill Barnhill
David Le Strat wrote:
>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/jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org/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 <da...@bluesunrise.com> 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:
>>jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Posted by David Le Strat <dl...@yahoo.com>.
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/jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org/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 <da...@bluesunrise.com> 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:
> jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org