You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.at> on 2005/02/18 11:01:06 UTC
Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
Hi Aron,
I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
Avalon-free JamesNG
(http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut
feeling is that it won't be an easy task.
As a casual James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few ways to go
*) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
*) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
*) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of
there choice for the migration process
*) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big Bang
I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is
that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) - but we have to keep the
James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress and
Fulcrum YAAFI.
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that
J Aaron Farr wrote:
>Thanks for the clarifications. I'm very interested in seeing what
>Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.
>
>
>
>>I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of minutes.
>>It should be simple to make simple things.
>>
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
>documentation and we can definitely make it more simple. The goal of
>Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.
>
>So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
>component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?
>
>
>
Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 18 February 2005 18:01, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi Aron,
>
> I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
> badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
> Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
> Avalon-free JamesNG
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut
> feeling is that it won't be an easy task.
A previous discussion led to the conclusion that all configuration and
deployment files must be interpreted as they are now, which leads to an
immense compatibility issue, since you effectively need to be Phoenix/Loom
compatible in every respect.
Now, perhaps such ambitions drop over time, but if not, then I think that
either James resurrects Phoenix as their own internal container (much like
Cocoon now have their own ECM+) or a migration to Loom are the only
reasonable paths forward.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 18 February 2005 18:01, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi Aron,
>
> I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
> badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
> Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
> Avalon-free JamesNG
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut
> feeling is that it won't be an easy task.
A previous discussion led to the conclusion that all configuration and
deployment files must be interpreted as they are now, which leads to an
immense compatibility issue, since you effectively need to be Phoenix/Loom
compatible in every respect.
Now, perhaps such ambitions drop over time, but if not, then I think that
either James resurrects Phoenix as their own internal container (much like
Cocoon now have their own ECM+) or a migration to Loom are the only
reasonable paths forward.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [jamesng] Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum
release ....
Posted by Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>.
> I am currently working on removing avalon dependence from current v2x
> source of james and making james a set of POJOs
> And I guess by the end of the following week it will be ready to be
> testable by other developers
Glad to hear that :).
We can't wait to test it :).
>> *) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
>> *) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
>> *) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of
>> there choice for the migration process
>> *) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big Bang
>
> I vote for the last one
> + reuse components already written by making them POJOs
Sometimes extreme measures are the best to clean something. Maybe if
other software projects would follow your pattern, it wouldn't be so
much "bloatware" out there :).
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jamesng] Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum
release ....
Posted by Alexander Zhukov <zh...@ukrpost.net>.
Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> it is none of my business but it means that you have to migrate the
> cornerstone and excalibur-datasource stuff as well?! I also assume that
> you are using a IOC container such as Hivemind or Pico/Nano Container?!
Well my goal is to make james a set of CDI style POJOs
As for datasource stuff i just leave interface dependency
"public MyPOJO(DataSourceStuffInterface ds, OtherDepsHere ...)"
and write dummy implementation of that interface ready to be
junit-tested, launched by developer to test the idea of CDI IoC applied
to james current code.
Same applies to other non-jdbc related interfaces.
If someone wants he can use cornerstone/excalibur implementations of
those interfaces.
My point is to remove ugly configuration code from james and make POJOs
not search its configuration itself but accept dependent components as
parameters in constructor.
Injection of dependent components (the process of configuring) is a
concern of any light-weight container, the exact container (whether it
is hivemind/picocontainer) does not matter for me.
As an example I wrote dumb container (one class few K of code) which is
configured by standard james-config.xml familiar to james users and
developers.
Executive summary: make james a set of POJOs, container does not matter
if you have a set of POJOs
>
> Cheers,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
> Alexander Zhukov wrote:
>
>> Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Aron,
>>>
>>> I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
>>> badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
>>> Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
>>> Avalon-free JamesNG
>>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut
>>> feeling is that it won't be an easy task.
>>
>>
>> I am currently working on removing avalon dependence from current v2x
>> source of james and making james a set of POJOs
>> And I guess by the end of the following week it will be ready to be
>> testable by other developers
>> Yes you are right the task of throwing out avalon is not easy but its
>> worth the trouble.
>> It took me about two weeks already - I have pop3 and smtp servers
>> running, but not clean enough to show others.
>>
>>
>>> As a casual James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few
>>> ways to go
>>>
>>> *) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
>>> *) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
>>> *) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of
>>> there choice for the migration process
>>> *) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big
>>> Bang
>>
>>
>> I vote for the last one
>> + reuse components already written by making them POJOs
>>
>>
>>> I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is
>>> that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) - but we have to keep
>>> the James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress
>>> and Fulcrum YAAFI.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that
>>>
>>> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarifications. I'm very interested in seeing what
>>>> Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of
>>>>> minutes.
>>>>> It should be simple to make simple things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
>>>> documentation and we can definitely make it more simple. The goal of
>>>> Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
>>>> component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jamesng] Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum
release ....
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.at>.
Hi Alexander,
it is none of my business but it means that you have to migrate the
cornerstone and excalibur-datasource stuff as well?! I also assume that
you are using a IOC container such as Hivemind or Pico/Nano Container?!
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
Siegfried Goeschl
Alexander Zhukov wrote:
> Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>
>> Hi Aron,
>>
>> I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
>> badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
>> Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
>> Avalon-free JamesNG
>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut
>> feeling is that it won't be an easy task.
>
> I am currently working on removing avalon dependence from current v2x
> source of james and making james a set of POJOs
> And I guess by the end of the following week it will be ready to be
> testable by other developers
> Yes you are right the task of throwing out avalon is not easy but its
> worth the trouble.
> It took me about two weeks already - I have pop3 and smtp servers
> running, but not clean enough to show others.
>
>
>> As a casual James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few
>> ways to go
>>
>> *) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
>> *) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
>> *) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of
>> there choice for the migration process
>> *) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big
>> Bang
>
> I vote for the last one
> + reuse components already written by making them POJOs
>
>
>> I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is
>> that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) - but we have to keep
>> the James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress
>> and Fulcrum YAAFI.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>
>>
>> Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that
>>
>> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the clarifications. I'm very interested in seeing what
>>> Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of
>>>> minutes.
>>>> It should be simple to make simple things.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
>>> documentation and we can definitely make it more simple. The goal of
>>> Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.
>>>
>>> So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
>>> component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
[jamesng] Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release
....
Posted by Alexander Zhukov <zh...@ukrpost.net>.
Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi Aron,
>
> I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
> badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
> Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
> Avalon-free JamesNG
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut
> feeling is that it won't be an easy task.
I am currently working on removing avalon dependence from current v2x
source of james and making james a set of POJOs
And I guess by the end of the following week it will be ready to be
testable by other developers
Yes you are right the task of throwing out avalon is not easy but its
worth the trouble.
It took me about two weeks already - I have pop3 and smtp servers
running, but not clean enough to show others.
> As a casual James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few ways
> to go
>
> *) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
> *) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
> *) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of
> there choice for the migration process
> *) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big Bang
I vote for the last one
+ reuse components already written by making them POJOs
> I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is
> that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) - but we have to keep the
> James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress and
> Fulcrum YAAFI.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
> Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that
>
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clarifications. I'm very interested in seeing what
>> Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of minutes.
>>> It should be simple to make simple things.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
>> documentation and we can definitely make it more simple. The goal of
>> Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.
>>
>> So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
>> component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org