You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Nick Faiz <ni...@ce.com.au> on 2003/08/25 00:45:26 UTC

Newcomers being useful

Hi,

            I'm another newcomer. When time permits, I think it would be
helpful to give newcomers a clearer insight into what is needed for the
project. For example, I'd be happy to write unit tests but how do I know
that another developer is not doing the same thing at the same time
somewhere else? On the other hand, if someone needs a hand with something
like that, please let me know.

 

            I'm looking forward to Alex Rupp's design documents ...

 

            My current goal is to keep an up to date build, learn the
design, etc.. Hopefully, when things settle down, it will become clearer for
the uninitiated how to participate.

 

Regards,

Nick Faiz.         

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Siva [mailto:siva@sivasundaram.com] 
Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 4:40 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Contribute [Was Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part]

 

IMO,the best way to start contributing is to read the codebase and write
unit tests for it.This way you can start understanding the 

system and help the system evolve towards a TDD.

 

Siva

----- Original Message ----- 

From: kamesh kompella <ma...@hotmail.com>  

To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
<ma...@incubator.apache.org>  

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:05 AM

Subject: Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part

 

Hi,

   I am interested in contributing. I have added my name and I was perusing
through the cvs. Can somebody let me know the current status and where I can
jump in?

 

Thanks.

Kamesh

Re: Axioms for JCA implementation

Posted by Richard Monson-Haefel <Ri...@Monson-Haefel.com>.

On 8/25/03 3:51 PM, in article BAY8-DAV16HtMFaukyC00043d86@hotmail.com,
"kamesh kompella" 
<ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>                   Thanks for the info. In that case, I will look into getting
> RA going for openjms. This will be the "dummy" RA that can be used for testing
> the app server's contract's implementation once the infrastructure is in
> place.  
>  
> I was intrigued by one of your statements:
> "Personally, I dont think the CCI offers much value. Most Ras will have very
> specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting it."
> Is the variability in API ok as the code will be derived at deployment time
> with the help of some tools which will hide the custom API from source code?
> Also, what happens to two tier clients ( Should we leave them out altogether
> since this is as bad as mixing DB calls in a JSP) ? Do we assume that these
> clients will talk to the App server?
>  
> Thanks.
> Kamesh

If I remember correctly  its been a couple of years  the CCI is an
abstraction for a synch resource. The idea was to create an API that any
resource could implement, regardless of its purpose. However, in practice
each type of resource has its own API and usually its easier to work with
that, than a generic abstraction.  I think some vendors have implemented the
CCI for ERP RA adapters, but I¹m not sure about that. Personally, I don¹t
think the CCI adds much value, but I don¹t really care if someone else wants
to implement it.

Richard

Re: Axioms for JCA implementation

Posted by kamesh kompella <ko...@hotmail.com>.

Re: Axioms for JCA implementationHi Richard,
Thanks for the info. In that case, I will look into getting RA going for openjms. This will be the "dummy" RA that can be used for testing the app server's contract's implementation once the infrastructure is in place.

I was intrigued by one of your statements:
"Personally, I don't think the CCI offers much value. Most Ras will have very specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting it."
Is the variability in API ok as the code will be derived at deployment time with the help of some tools which will hide the custom API from source code? Also, what happens to two tier clients ( Should we leave them out altogether since this is as bad as mixing DB calls in a JSP) ? Do we assume that these clients will talk to the App server?

Thanks.
Kamesh
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Monson-Haefel
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: Axioms for JCA implementation

My 2 cents ...

On 8/24/03 11:46 PM, in article BAY8-DAV242dC8lU8WX000436a6@hotmail.com, "kamesh kompella" <ko...@public.gmane.org> wrote:

There are some tests in place already under the incubator-geronimo\specs\j2ee-connector\src\test directory. However, these are against the classes that are specified in the spec. Beyond these, as I see it, one can write all the tests one wants, (as they will be testing the interfaces) but the more important path of figuring out what's to be done to make the implementations concrete has to be tread. There are several gaps in the connector specification that will need to be filled in. These are left out for the implementation. Further, we need to figure out the axioms for the system.

1.. What can we assume and program against? In other words, what are the givens and what is it we are trying to accomplish?

Support for arbitrary JCA 1.5 connectors (resources).

2. Are we going to provide hooks to let individual RAs or are we not going to do any implementation there at all? In fact, what is the purview of this project vis-a-vis the implementation? Are we going to limit ourselves to simply implementing the contract from the app server side? I do realize that providing an implementation for each EIS there is, is hard.

At a minimum we should provide a JCA RA for OpenJMS. This will allow us to use that impl for MDBs and as the default JMS provider. Last time I checked, the JMS API wasn't explicitly aligned with JCA 1.5, but I don't think that will be a problem to work around.

3. The spec does not require that the CCI need be supported. In the light of this information, are we planning on evolving an API?

Personally, I don't think the CCI offers much value. Most Ras will have very specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting it.

4. In any case, we will need to write dummy RAs that will ensure that our tests run. We will also need to supply other components that will become a reality eventually when other groups fill in.

I recall having have heard certain other ideas that are outside the scope of the spec per se but seem to be the responsibility of the implementation group. I was wondering if anybody can fill me in on these.

In short, since this is a spec that is pretty much laid out, with most of the work being done by the third parties or first parties which ever you feel like calling it, I see little reason for not getting the ball rolling. This is, of course, my 2 cents, and I could be splashing my ignorance for all and sundry to wallow in. If that is the case, please enjoy the humor I provided and don't forget to mail me the check. :)

I would advise that we wait until the core architecture of Geronoimo is established. There is still debate about how the kernel should be implemented, and this will have a direct impact on the JCA support in Geronimo. That said, I don't think there is any harm in getting started on the dummy RAs (one sync and the other async) since this will take some time and will be extremely useful for testing once development does begin.

-k

----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Faiz <ma...@public.gmane.org>
To: 'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org' <mailto:'geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org'>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: Newcomers being useful

Hi,

I'm another newcomer. When time permits, I think it would be helpful to give newcomers a clearer insight into what is needed for the project. For example, I'd be happy to write unit tests but how do I know that another developer is not doing the same thing at the same time somewhere else? On the other hand, if someone needs a hand with something like that, please let me know.

I'm looking forward to Alex Rupp's design documents ...

My current goal is to keep an up to date build, learn the design, etc.. Hopefully, when things settle down, it will become clearer for the uninitiated how to participate.

Regards,

Nick Faiz.

-----Original Message-----
From: Siva [mailto:siva@^'z!³öÜT(kl^ÓN]
Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 4:40 AM
To: geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
Subject: Contribute [Was Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part]

IMO,the best way to start contributing is to read the codebase and write unit tests for it.This way you can start understanding the

system and help the system evolve towards a TDD.

Siva

----- Original Message -----

From: kamesh kompella <ma...@public.gmane.org>

To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org <ma...@public.gmane.org>

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:05 AM

Subject: Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part

Hi,

I am interested in contributing. I have added my name and I was perusing through the cvs. Can somebody let me know the current status and where I can jump in?

Thanks.

Kamesh

Re: Axioms for JCA implementation

Posted by Richard Monson-Haefel <Ri...@Monson-Haefel.com>.

My 2 cents ...


On 8/24/03 11:46 PM, in article BAY8-DAV242dC8lU8WX000436a6@hotmail.com,
"kamesh kompella" 
<ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>             There are some tests in place already under the
> incubator-geronimo\specs\j2ee-connector\src\test directory. However,  these
> are against the classes that are specified in the spec. Beyond these, as I see
> it, one can write all the tests one wants, (as they will be testing the
> interfaces)  but the more important path of figuring out what's to be done to
> make the implementations concrete has to be tread. There are several gaps in
> the connector specification that will need to be filled in. These are left out
> for the implementation. Further, we need to figure out the axioms for the
> system.
>  
> 1. What can we assume and program against? In other words, what are the givens
> and what is it we are trying to accomplish?

Support for arbitrary JCA 1.5 connectors (resources).

> 2. Are we going to provide hooks to let individual RAs or are we not going to
> do any implementation there at all? In fact, what is the purview of this
> project vis-a-vis the implementation? Are we going to limit ourselves to
> simply implementing the contract from the app server side?  I do realize that
> providing an implementation for each EIS there is, is hard.
> 
At a minimum we should provide a JCA RA for OpenJMS. This will allow us to
use that impl for MDBs and as the default JMS provider. Last time I checked,
the JMS API wasn¹t explicitly aligned with JCA 1.5, but I don¹t think that
will be a problem to work around.
> 
> 3. The spec does not require that the CCI need be supported. In the light of
> this information, are we planning on evolving an API?
> 
Personally, I don¹t think the CCI offers much value. Most Ras will have very
specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting it.
> 
> 4. In any case, we will need to write dummy RAs that will ensure that our
> tests run. We will also need to supply other components that will become a
> reality eventually when other groups fill in.
>  
> I recall having have heard certain other ideas that are outside the scope of
> the spec per se but seem to be the responsibility of the implementation group.
> I was wondering if anybody can fill me in on these.
>  
> In short, since this is a spec that is pretty much laid out, with most of the
> work being done by the third parties or first parties which ever you feel like
> calling it, I see little reason for not getting the ball rolling. This is, of
> course, my 2 cents, and I could be splashing my ignorance for all and sundry
> to wallow in. If that is the case, please enjoy the humor I provided and don't
> forget to mail me the check. :)
> 
I would advise that we wait until the core architecture of Geronoimo is
established. There is still debate about how the kernel should be
implemented, and this will have a direct impact on the JCA support in
Geronimo.  That said, I don¹t think there is any harm in getting started on
the dummy RAs (one sync and the other async) since this will take some time
and will be extremely useful for testing once development does begin.
>  
> -k
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Nick Faiz <ma...@ce.com.au>
>> To: 'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
>> <mailto:'geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org'>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:45 PM
>> Subject: Newcomers being useful
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>             I'm another newcomer. When time permits, I think it would be
>> helpful to give newcomers a clearer insight into what is needed for the
>> project. For example, I'd be happy to write unit tests but how do I know that
>> another developer is not doing the same thing at the same time somewhere
>> else? On the other hand, if someone needs a hand with something like that,
>> please let me know.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>             I'm looking forward to Alex Rupp's design documents ...
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>             My current goal is to keep an up to date build, learn the design,
>> etc.. Hopefully, when things settle down, it will become clearer for the
>> uninitiated how to participate.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nick Faiz.      
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Siva [mailto:siva@sivasundaram.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 4:40 AM
>> To: geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
>> Subject: Contribute [Was Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part]
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> IMO,the best way to start contributing is to read the codebase and write unit
>> tests for it.This way you can start understanding the
>> 
>> system and help the system evolve towards a TDD.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Siva
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> 
>>> From: kamesh kompella
>>> <ma...@hotmail.com>
>>> 
>>> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> <ma...@public.gmane.org>
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:05 AM
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>    I am interested in contributing. I have added my name and I was perusing
>>> through the cvs. Can somebody let me know the current status and where I can
>>> jump in?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Kamesh
>

Axioms for JCA implementation

Posted by kamesh kompella <ko...@hotmail.com>.

1. What can we assume and program against? In other words, what are the givens and what is it we are trying to accomplish?
2. Are we going to provide hooks to let individual RAs or are we not going to do any implementation there at all? In fact, what is the purview of this project vis-a-vis the implementation? Are we going to limit ourselves to simply implementing the contract from the app server side? I do realize that providing an implementation for each EIS there is, is hard.
3. The spec does not require that the CCI need be supported. In the light of this information, are we planning on evolving an API?
4. In any case, we will need to write dummy RAs that will ensure that our tests run. We will also need to supply other components that will become a reality eventually when other groups fill in.

-k
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Faiz
To: 'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: Newcomers being useful

Hi,

I'm looking forward to Alex Rupp's design documents ...

My current goal is to keep an up to date build, learn the design, etc.. Hopefully, when things settle down, it will become clearer for the uninitiated how to participate.

Regards,

Nick Faiz.

-----Original Message-----
From: Siva [mailto:siva@sivasundaram.com]
Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 4:40 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Contribute [Was Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part]

IMO,the best way to start contributing is to read the codebase and write unit tests for it.This way you can start understanding the

system and help the system evolve towards a TDD.

Siva

----- Original Message -----

From: kamesh kompella

To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:05 AM

Subject: Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part

Hi,

I am interested in contributing. I have added my name and I was perusing through the cvs. Can somebody let me know the current status and where I can jump in?

Thanks.

Kamesh