You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org> on 2008/05/02 14:53:35 UTC
Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
[
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
]
Note to plexus lovers :
CONTROVERSAL PROPOSAL, please don't blame me and just give good arguments !
[
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
]
Maven is built on Plexus. This lightweight container is used (afaik) for :
- simple (javadoc) annotation-based programming model
- lifecycle management
- dependency injection
- classloader isolation for plugins (using classworld)
Let's now consider the today responses to the same requirements :
- Since Java5, annotations are common, and JSR-250 introduces standard
annotations that can address some basic lifecycle and IoC requirements.
- The IoC container ecosystem is dominated by Springframework. Maybe not the
best technical one for any reason, but the best documented and most know by
developers.
- Classloader isolation is very well adressed by OSGi, with the advantage of
beeing a recognized standard, with many documentation AND business interest.
Maybe Plexus was a very advanced container when it was created, but it did
not become the today 1rst choice technology.
Considering an opensource tool like maven is built by volunteers developers,
it would be a good thing to attract talentuous ones to use up-to-date and
well known technologies. As an example, Archiva (trunk) is migrating to
Spring as it's IoC container.
Could we consider for future maven version (let's say 2.2, or "3.0" - as 2.1
is allready in advanced development phase) to replace plexus with a
combination of Java5 + Spring + OSGi ?
Nicolas.
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Jan Nielsen <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> FWIW, IMO introducing Spring and OSGI to replace a number of the
> choices in Maven is a good start; these are excellent frameworks with
> excellent documentation, excellent communities, and a lot of
> experienced developers - something that simply cannot be said of
> Plexus, "XBR", Classworlds - and that represents tremendous value. Not
> recognizing, or acknowledging, that seems likely to be at the root of
> Maven's slow progress. Java5+, including annotations and generics, is
> a no-brainer, and it has been for a long time. On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:53
> AM, nicolas de loof <
All good points Jan. Plexus is a pretty slick container so I can't imagine
it would be that hard for it to adapt to OSGi. Following a standard is the
best way to go almost always even if the non-standard solution is more
superior.
Alex
> ----------------------------------
> > ]
> > Note to plexus lovers :
> > CONTROVERSAL PROPOSAL, please don't blame me and just give good
> arguments !
> > [
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ]
> >
> > Maven is built on Plexus. This lightweight container is used (afaik) for
> :
> > - simple (javadoc) annotation-based programming model
> > - lifecycle management
> > - dependency injection
> > - classloader isolation for plugins (using classworld)
> >
> > Let's now consider the today responses to the same requirements :
> > - Since Java5, annotations are common, and JSR-250 introduces standard
> > annotations that can address some basic lifecycle and IoC requirements.
> > - The IoC container ecosystem is dominated by Springframework. Maybe not
> the
> > best technical one for any reason, but the best documented and most know
> by
> > developers.
> > - Classloader isolation is very well adressed by OSGi, with the advantage
> of
> > beeing a recognized standard, with many documentation AND business
> interest.
> >
> > Maybe Plexus was a very advanced container when it was created, but it
> did
> > not become the today 1rst choice technology.
> >
> > Considering an opensource tool like maven is built by volunteers
> developers,
> > it would be a good thing to attract talentuous ones to use up-to-date and
> > well known technologies. As an example, Archiva (trunk) is migrating to
> > Spring as it's IoC container.
> >
> > Could we consider for future maven version (let's say 2.2, or "3.0" - as
> 2.1
> > is allready in advanced development phase) to replace plexus with a
> > combination of Java5 + Spring + OSGi ?
> >
> > Nicolas.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Jan Nielsen <ja...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, IMO introducing Spring and OSGI to replace a number of the
choices in Maven is a good start; these are excellent frameworks with
excellent documentation, excellent communities, and a lot of
experienced developers - something that simply cannot be said of
Plexus, "XBR", Classworlds - and that represents tremendous value. Not
recognizing, or acknowledging, that seems likely to be at the root of
Maven's slow progress. Java5+, including annotations and generics, is
a no-brainer, and it has been for a long time.
With respect,
-Jan
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:53 AM, nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> [
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
> Note to plexus lovers :
> CONTROVERSAL PROPOSAL, please don't blame me and just give good arguments !
> [
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
>
> Maven is built on Plexus. This lightweight container is used (afaik) for :
> - simple (javadoc) annotation-based programming model
> - lifecycle management
> - dependency injection
> - classloader isolation for plugins (using classworld)
>
> Let's now consider the today responses to the same requirements :
> - Since Java5, annotations are common, and JSR-250 introduces standard
> annotations that can address some basic lifecycle and IoC requirements.
> - The IoC container ecosystem is dominated by Springframework. Maybe not the
> best technical one for any reason, but the best documented and most know by
> developers.
> - Classloader isolation is very well adressed by OSGi, with the advantage of
> beeing a recognized standard, with many documentation AND business interest.
>
> Maybe Plexus was a very advanced container when it was created, but it did
> not become the today 1rst choice technology.
>
> Considering an opensource tool like maven is built by volunteers developers,
> it would be a good thing to attract talentuous ones to use up-to-date and
> well known technologies. As an example, Archiva (trunk) is migrating to
> Spring as it's IoC container.
>
> Could we consider for future maven version (let's say 2.2, or "3.0" - as 2.1
> is allready in advanced development phase) to replace plexus with a
> combination of Java5 + Spring + OSGi ?
>
> Nicolas.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I'd really love to see that, but that's not news at all ;)
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:53 AM, nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> [
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
> Note to plexus lovers :
> CONTROVERSAL PROPOSAL, please don't blame me and just give good arguments !
> [
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
>
> Maven is built on Plexus. This lightweight container is used (afaik) for :
> - simple (javadoc) annotation-based programming model
> - lifecycle management
> - dependency injection
> - classloader isolation for plugins (using classworld)
>
> Let's now consider the today responses to the same requirements :
> - Since Java5, annotations are common, and JSR-250 introduces standard
> annotations that can address some basic lifecycle and IoC requirements.
> - The IoC container ecosystem is dominated by Springframework. Maybe not the
> best technical one for any reason, but the best documented and most know by
> developers.
> - Classloader isolation is very well adressed by OSGi, with the advantage of
> beeing a recognized standard, with many documentation AND business interest.
>
> Maybe Plexus was a very advanced container when it was created, but it did
> not become the today 1rst choice technology.
>
> Considering an opensource tool like maven is built by volunteers developers,
> it would be a good thing to attract talentuous ones to use up-to-date and
> well known technologies. As an example, Archiva (trunk) is migrating to
> Spring as it's IoC container.
>
> Could we consider for future maven version (let's say 2.2, or "3.0" - as 2.1
> is allready in advanced development phase) to replace plexus with a
> combination of Java5 + Spring + OSGi ?
>
> Nicolas.
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org>.
My initial idea was not about Plexus vs Spring but to use OSGi as it
supports the plugin + isolation that is required for maven, and suggested
Spring because it allready supports OSGi.
If we can use plexus with OSGi, lets do it. I just would prefer plexus to be
less intrusive and to support annotations, as a replacement for javadocs and
a dedicated maven plugin to extract components requirements.
2008/5/2 Garvin LeClaire <ga...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> I would agree . Why spend time converting the core just to be on a "more
> popular" framework. What would we do if Guice became more popular, change
> again?
> I think the bigger issue here is documentation on Maven's design and
> design implementation. I find I have to search in a lot of places and dig
> deep into the code to find out information when writing plugins. This would
> be the same issue today if we had Spring. Now I do have to admit I am just
> as guilty of this when I write my plugin which is much smaller the core
> Maven. I think we all need to take the time to produce and consolidate this
> information for users and for developers in order to foster the Maven
> development community.
>
> I do think that OSGi would provide a way to alleviate our dependency
> issues (classpath hell). I know I am going through that now and it is not
> easy to deal with.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Garvin LeClaire
> garvin.leclaire@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Luke Patterson <lu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I agree that people would be more willing (and able) to contribute if
> > > the
> > > core technologies were "Java5 + Spring + OSGi".
> > >
> > >
> > > In the limited amount of time available to learn new things, is it
> > > worthwhile for one to learn Plexus?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I must admit that I find this puzzling.
> >
> > What people drives to participate in an open source project like
> > Maven, will, IMO, hardly be the inner architecture, but the value it
> > gives you for your daily work. Not that I find the Maven core
> > particularly clear, but that is hardly the result of using Plexus and
> > more owned to the cores complexity.
> >
> > Apart from that, the most work is not so much in the core but in the
> > components. I surely hope that noone intends to rewrite or, even
> > worse, enforce a rewrite of shared components, plugins, and so on.
> >
> > To sum it up: I don't see the value in that project. If there are
> > people who want to do it, fine with me, but I don't see what we could
> > win.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Jochen
>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org>.
Thats true,
The reason new developers/advanced users have to learn Plexus is to
create/configure plugins and dependecies. Having a more documented and
flexible plugin Api would make things simplier.
A firend of mine has created a custom maven plugin for a trivial task. He
took much of the dev time to understand the annotation based IoC, the plugin
API to acces the project folders, etc.. and had no idea how this could be
unit tested, as this requires yet another dedicated tool.
Nicolas.
2008/5/2 John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>:
> I think this issue would go away if we could write a plugin-facilities api
> that gave easy access to the things plugins need to do in most cases. In
> other words, publish a formal, public api for Maven for the plugin
> developer. While it'd be nice to have full design docs for all of Maven, in
> 90% of cases this wouldn't help the plugin developer...it would only serve
> to create a new haystack to poke through (this one in HTML rather than
> Java). If we can be a little more selective this, and provide a
> plugin-oriented api for common tasks like resolving artifacts, building
> projects, etc. then document that, we'd probably alleviate the problems for
> 90% of users.
>
> -john
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Garvin LeClaire wrote:
>
> I find I have to search in a lot of places and dig deep into the code to
> > find out information when writing plugins.
> >
>
> ---
> John Casey
> Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
> mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
> blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
>
>
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Garvin LeClaire <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think that would help.
Today the classpath issues seem greater with reporter (AbstractReporter)
plugins than plain Mojo plugins.
Regards,
Garvin LeClaire
garvin.leclaire@gmail.com
John Casey wrote:
> I think this issue would go away if we could write a plugin-facilities
> api that gave easy access to the things plugins need to do in most
> cases. In other words, publish a formal, public api for Maven for the
> plugin developer. While it'd be nice to have full design docs for all
> of Maven, in 90% of cases this wouldn't help the plugin developer...it
> would only serve to create a new haystack to poke through (this one in
> HTML rather than Java). If we can be a little more selective this, and
> provide a plugin-oriented api for common tasks like resolving
> artifacts, building projects, etc. then document that, we'd probably
> alleviate the problems for 90% of users.
>
> -john
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Garvin LeClaire wrote:
>
>> I find I have to search in a lot of places and dig deep into the
>> code to find out information when writing plugins.
>
> ---
> John Casey
> Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
> mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
> blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
I think this issue would go away if we could write a plugin-
facilities api that gave easy access to the things plugins need to do
in most cases. In other words, publish a formal, public api for Maven
for the plugin developer. While it'd be nice to have full design docs
for all of Maven, in 90% of cases this wouldn't help the plugin
developer...it would only serve to create a new haystack to poke
through (this one in HTML rather than Java). If we can be a little
more selective this, and provide a plugin-oriented api for common
tasks like resolving artifacts, building projects, etc. then document
that, we'd probably alleviate the problems for 90% of users.
-john
On May 2, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Garvin LeClaire wrote:
> I find I have to search in a lot of places and dig deep into the
> code to find out information when writing plugins.
---
John Casey
Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Garvin LeClaire <ga...@gmail.com>.
I would agree . Why spend time converting the core just to be on a
"more popular" framework. What would we do if Guice became more
popular, change again?
I think the bigger issue here is documentation on Maven's design and
design implementation. I find I have to search in a lot of places and
dig deep into the code to find out information when writing plugins.
This would be the same issue today if we had Spring. Now I do have to
admit I am just as guilty of this when I write my plugin which is much
smaller the core Maven. I think we all need to take the time to produce
and consolidate this information for users and for developers in order
to foster the Maven development community.
I do think that OSGi would provide a way to alleviate our dependency
issues (classpath hell). I know I am going through that now and it is
not easy to deal with.
Regards,
Garvin LeClaire
garvin.leclaire@gmail.com
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Luke Patterson <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree that people would be more willing (and able) to contribute if the
>> core technologies were "Java5 + Spring + OSGi".
>>
>>
>> In the limited amount of time available to learn new things, is it
>> worthwhile for one to learn Plexus?
>>
>
> I must admit that I find this puzzling.
>
> What people drives to participate in an open source project like
> Maven, will, IMO, hardly be the inner architecture, but the value it
> gives you for your daily work. Not that I find the Maven core
> particularly clear, but that is hardly the result of using Plexus and
> more owned to the cores complexity.
>
> Apart from that, the most work is not so much in the core but in the
> components. I surely hope that noone intends to rewrite or, even
> worse, enforce a rewrite of shared components, plugins, and so on.
>
> To sum it up: I don't see the value in that project. If there are
> people who want to do it, fine with me, but I don't see what we could
> win.
>
>
>
Jochen
>
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Luke Patterson <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that people would be more willing (and able) to contribute if the
> core technologies were "Java5 + Spring + OSGi".
>
>
> In the limited amount of time available to learn new things, is it
> worthwhile for one to learn Plexus?
I must admit that I find this puzzling.
What people drives to participate in an open source project like
Maven, will, IMO, hardly be the inner architecture, but the value it
gives you for your daily work. Not that I find the Maven core
particularly clear, but that is hardly the result of using Plexus and
more owned to the cores complexity.
Apart from that, the most work is not so much in the core but in the
components. I surely hope that noone intends to rewrite or, even
worse, enforce a rewrite of shared components, plugins, and so on.
To sum it up: I don't see the value in that project. If there are
people who want to do it, fine with me, but I don't see what we could
win.
Jochen
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you break 'em.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Luke Patterson <lu...@gmail.com>.
I agree that people would be more willing (and able) to contribute if the
core technologies were "Java5 + Spring + OSGi".
In the limited amount of time available to learn new things, is it
worthwhile for one to learn Plexus?
On 5/2/08, nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
> Note to plexus lovers :
> CONTROVERSAL PROPOSAL, please don't blame me and just give good arguments
> !
> [
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
>
> Maven is built on Plexus. This lightweight container is used (afaik) for :
> - simple (javadoc) annotation-based programming model
> - lifecycle management
> - dependency injection
> - classloader isolation for plugins (using classworld)
>
> Let's now consider the today responses to the same requirements :
> - Since Java5, annotations are common, and JSR-250 introduces standard
> annotations that can address some basic lifecycle and IoC requirements.
> - The IoC container ecosystem is dominated by Springframework. Maybe not
> the
> best technical one for any reason, but the best documented and most know
> by
> developers.
> - Classloader isolation is very well adressed by OSGi, with the advantage
> of
> beeing a recognized standard, with many documentation AND business
> interest.
>
> Maybe Plexus was a very advanced container when it was created, but it did
> not become the today 1rst choice technology.
>
> Considering an opensource tool like maven is built by volunteers
> developers,
> it would be a good thing to attract talentuous ones to use up-to-date and
> well known technologies. As an example, Archiva (trunk) is migrating to
> Spring as it's IoC container.
>
> Could we consider for future maven version (let's say 2.2, or "3.0" - as
> 2.1
> is allready in advanced development phase) to replace plexus with a
> combination of Java5 + Spring + OSGi ?
>
> Nicolas.
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
My 2 cents. I happen to like Spring. I know Avalon really well which
Plexus has its roots in. That being said, I really don't care which one
is used as long as DI is really used, and that is where the problem is.
Things that should have been wired via configuration aren't (i.e.
DefaultArtifactVersion).
If you have limited time spend it on things that really matter.
OSGi, on the other hand, might have some nice benefits that everyone
would appreciate.
Ralph
John Casey wrote:
> I have to say that I'm not at all interested in moving to Spring. At
> all. I've used both Spring and Plexus, and while I don't think Plexus
> is the end-all, be-all, it's better IMO than Spring. As far as
> annotations go, I completely agree with Jason, that Annotations should
> be standardized, and framework-agnostic. As for OSGi, I think we're
> definitely moving in the direction of that type of system in the 2.1
> extensions and plugin handling code, but I'd be a little hesitant to
> make the decision to give up all control over our classloading model
> without doing some serious tests on a branch to make sure OSGi can
> support our needs. IMO, ClassWorlds is fast approaching the capability
> of OSGi in terms of raw classloading flexibility.
>
> I have to say that I take some issue with the idea that we should
> completely refactor Maven to "standards" - which, by the way, are only
> popular items when we're talking about Spring, not specified standards
> that have more than one implementation - just so our users will get
> warm fuzzies about using the tool. From the user's perspective, if we
> have the bugs worked out of this system properly (we don't) then it
> absolutely shouldn't matter. If we get our annotations standardized to
> something that truly is being used by a large number of projects
> (where Spring is just one project...I'm not talking about all the
> projects *using* Spring), then plugin development shouldn't be that
> difficult to wrap one's head around. For many applications, it's
> actually not that hard now, as you don't need to interact with Plexus
> that much as-is. For instance, you don't even know that it's Plexus
> doing the DI for your plugin when you use @component annotations in
> your plugin...if that annotation were standardized, it would matter
> even less.
>
> I can appreciate that you don't want to learn another suite of
> technologies in order to be able to work on Maven, but I can repeat
> your argument back to you: I'm not interested in learning a suite of
> new apis in order to keep developing on Maven...at least, not unless
> there is a compelling reason.
>
> My two cents.
>
> -john
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 3:25 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>
>> From the fiew documentation available, XBean seems to be a container for
>> jsr250-based components, with plugability for various IoC containers.
>>
>> The "discover, download and install" plugin model seems to be very
>> similar
>> to OSGi, and the link to Eclipse Equinox makes me suppose it's OSGi
>> based
>> under the hood.
>>
>> This looks very similar to Spring-DM + Equinox, with support for
>> multiple
>> IoC containers.
>>
>> If maven only needs jsr-250 + custom annotations, it could be IoC
>> container
>> agnostic, beeing Spring or anything else with same features.
>>
>>> I also have never bought the argument that what's popular is what's
>>> best.
>> Maven wouldn't exist if that were the
>>> case. There's always room for competitors.
>>
>> beeing the most popular is not a technical argument, but this is to be
>> considered :
>> 1. the leader may not be technicaly stupid, beeing the leader
>> 2. when used as a service, the documentation / good knoledge from
>> developer community is IMHO a big element to consider.
>>
>> Sorry to say, but I allready had to learn Spring in deep,
>> some limited Plexus, and now OSGi, I won't look more at XBean until
>> it gets
>> mainly used or comes with highly innovative features.
>>
>> I agrea there is always room for competitors and that's a good thing
>> to see
>> people come with new ideas and projects, but just some "nice"
>> features is
>> not enough for me to choose a software, as what maven expect from it's
>> container is limited to simple IoC (no AOP, declarative TX, bytecode
>> instrumentation...) and advanced classloader/plugability. Only the
>> second
>> criteria can help the choice, and OSGi seems to be the most promising
>> technology.
>>
>> About "Maven wouldn't exist if that were the case", please remember
>> Maven1
>> was desinged as a "let's share common ANT scripts" and envolved on this
>> basis, and Maven2 was a "lets take what was good in M1 and make it
>> stronger". You never build from scratch, but allways start from what is
>> considered good.
>>
>> Today, what is considered good is
>> - about IoC : to be non-intrusive (plexus IS intrusive, as LogEnabled
>> demonstrates in most of classes) and to be compliant with the fiew
>> existing
>> standards (JSR250 or other).
>> - about plugin-based-architecture : hot deployment, replacement and
>> concurrent versionning, with OSGI as the only recognized candidate
>> (as JSR
>> for "java modules" is still WIP)
>>
>> Nicolas.
>>
>>
>> 2008/5/2 Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Hilco Wijbenga
>>> <hi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>> And ultimately the container DI is not the important part but the
>>>>> implementations of our components. Using standard annotations for
>>> that is a
>>>>> good thing and that's not hard. XBR does full JEE injection and can
>>> manage
>>>>> any sort of annotation based DI because it's entirely agnostic. At
>>> any rate
>>>>> full support for that is now possible with XBR.
>>>>
>>>> XBR? I did some googling but all I could find (aside from lots of
>>>> TVs)
>>>> was a reference to an apparently brand new Maven 2.1 project. No
>>>> website or anything. Where can I find more information?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hilco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> jesse mcconnell
>>> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
> ---
> John Casey
> Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
> mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
> blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
Nope, I'm doing everything with Dain and XBR which is entirely
agnostic. At the core of XBR is a simple model called a recipe which
describes how objects are supposed to be wired up. How you create
recipes doesn't matter. So with Plexus Dain took the existing
component descriptors and created the recipes which then tell XBR how
to inject various components into other components, and how to
configure components. The closest thing to it is Guice, but is not so
hard-wired to Java5 annotations. I'm happy to allow a little more
flexibility where Guice wants absolute certainty up-front and that's
fine but it's certainly not the model I want for Plexus. The proof is
in the pudding and XBR works great inside Plexus.
On 3-May-08, at 11:49 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
> Do you have some secret JCP working draft you could publish ;-) ?
>
> 2008/5/3 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>:
>
>> This is already starting to happen on a couple fronts.
>>
>>
>> On 3-May-08, at 8:32 AM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. I sense a javax.ioc and javax.ioc.annotations package. :)
>>>
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> On 2-May-08, at 16:56 , John Casey wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as annotations go, I completely agree with Jason, that
>>>> Annotations should be standardized, and framework-agnostic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> jason at sonatype dot com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.
>>
>> -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org>.
Do you have some secret JCP working draft you could publish ;-) ?
2008/5/3 Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>:
> This is already starting to happen on a couple fronts.
>
>
> On 3-May-08, at 8:32 AM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
>
> Hmm. I sense a javax.ioc and javax.ioc.annotations package. :)
> >
> > Christian.
> >
> > On 2-May-08, at 16:56 , John Casey wrote:
> >
> > As far as annotations go, I completely agree with Jason, that
> > > Annotations should be standardized, and framework-agnostic.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.
>
> -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
This is already starting to happen on a couple fronts.
On 3-May-08, at 8:32 AM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
> Hmm. I sense a javax.ioc and javax.ioc.annotations package. :)
>
> Christian.
>
> On 2-May-08, at 16:56 , John Casey wrote:
>
>> As far as annotations go, I completely agree with Jason, that
>> Annotations should be standardized, and framework-agnostic.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction.
-- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Christian Edward Gruber <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hmm. I sense a javax.ioc and javax.ioc.annotations package. :)
Christian.
On 2-May-08, at 16:56 , John Casey wrote:
> As far as annotations go, I completely agree with Jason, that
> Annotations should be standardized, and framework-agnostic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by John Casey <jd...@commonjava.org>.
I have to say that I'm not at all interested in moving to Spring. At
all. I've used both Spring and Plexus, and while I don't think Plexus
is the end-all, be-all, it's better IMO than Spring. As far as
annotations go, I completely agree with Jason, that Annotations
should be standardized, and framework-agnostic. As for OSGi, I think
we're definitely moving in the direction of that type of system in
the 2.1 extensions and plugin handling code, but I'd be a little
hesitant to make the decision to give up all control over our
classloading model without doing some serious tests on a branch to
make sure OSGi can support our needs. IMO, ClassWorlds is fast
approaching the capability of OSGi in terms of raw classloading
flexibility.
I have to say that I take some issue with the idea that we should
completely refactor Maven to "standards" - which, by the way, are
only popular items when we're talking about Spring, not specified
standards that have more than one implementation - just so our users
will get warm fuzzies about using the tool. From the user's
perspective, if we have the bugs worked out of this system properly
(we don't) then it absolutely shouldn't matter. If we get our
annotations standardized to something that truly is being used by a
large number of projects (where Spring is just one project...I'm not
talking about all the projects *using* Spring), then plugin
development shouldn't be that difficult to wrap one's head around.
For many applications, it's actually not that hard now, as you don't
need to interact with Plexus that much as-is. For instance, you don't
even know that it's Plexus doing the DI for your plugin when you use
@component annotations in your plugin...if that annotation were
standardized, it would matter even less.
I can appreciate that you don't want to learn another suite of
technologies in order to be able to work on Maven, but I can repeat
your argument back to you: I'm not interested in learning a suite of
new apis in order to keep developing on Maven...at least, not unless
there is a compelling reason.
My two cents.
-john
On May 2, 2008, at 3:25 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
> From the fiew documentation available, XBean seems to be a
> container for
> jsr250-based components, with plugability for various IoC containers.
>
> The "discover, download and install" plugin model seems to be very
> similar
> to OSGi, and the link to Eclipse Equinox makes me suppose it's OSGi
> based
> under the hood.
>
> This looks very similar to Spring-DM + Equinox, with support for
> multiple
> IoC containers.
>
> If maven only needs jsr-250 + custom annotations, it could be IoC
> container
> agnostic, beeing Spring or anything else with same features.
>
>> I also have never bought the argument that what's popular is
>> what's best.
> Maven wouldn't exist if that were the
>> case. There's always room for competitors.
>
> beeing the most popular is not a technical argument, but this is to be
> considered :
> 1. the leader may not be technicaly stupid, beeing the leader
> 2. when used as a service, the documentation / good knoledge from
> developer community is IMHO a big element to consider.
>
> Sorry to say, but I allready had to learn Spring in deep,
> some limited Plexus, and now OSGi, I won't look more at XBean until
> it gets
> mainly used or comes with highly innovative features.
>
> I agrea there is always room for competitors and that's a good
> thing to see
> people come with new ideas and projects, but just some "nice"
> features is
> not enough for me to choose a software, as what maven expect from it's
> container is limited to simple IoC (no AOP, declarative TX, bytecode
> instrumentation...) and advanced classloader/plugability. Only the
> second
> criteria can help the choice, and OSGi seems to be the most promising
> technology.
>
> About "Maven wouldn't exist if that were the case", please remember
> Maven1
> was desinged as a "let's share common ANT scripts" and envolved on
> this
> basis, and Maven2 was a "lets take what was good in M1 and make it
> stronger". You never build from scratch, but allways start from
> what is
> considered good.
>
> Today, what is considered good is
> - about IoC : to be non-intrusive (plexus IS intrusive, as LogEnabled
> demonstrates in most of classes) and to be compliant with the fiew
> existing
> standards (JSR250 or other).
> - about plugin-based-architecture : hot deployment, replacement and
> concurrent versionning, with OSGI as the only recognized candidate
> (as JSR
> for "java modules" is still WIP)
>
> Nicolas.
>
>
> 2008/5/2 Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>:
>
>> http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean
>>
>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Hilco Wijbenga
>> <hi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>> And ultimately the container DI is not the important part but the
>>>> implementations of our components. Using standard annotations for
>> that is a
>>>> good thing and that's not hard. XBR does full JEE injection and can
>> manage
>>>> any sort of annotation based DI because it's entirely agnostic. At
>> any rate
>>>> full support for that is now possible with XBR.
>>>
>>> XBR? I did some googling but all I could find (aside from lots
>>> of TVs)
>>> was a reference to an apparently brand new Maven 2.1 project. No
>>> website or anything. Where can I find more information?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hilco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> jesse mcconnell
>> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
---
John Casey
Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by nicolas de loof <ni...@apache.org>.
>From the fiew documentation available, XBean seems to be a container for
jsr250-based components, with plugability for various IoC containers.
The "discover, download and install" plugin model seems to be very similar
to OSGi, and the link to Eclipse Equinox makes me suppose it's OSGi based
under the hood.
This looks very similar to Spring-DM + Equinox, with support for multiple
IoC containers.
If maven only needs jsr-250 + custom annotations, it could be IoC container
agnostic, beeing Spring or anything else with same features.
> I also have never bought the argument that what's popular is what's best.
Maven wouldn't exist if that were the
> case. There's always room for competitors.
beeing the most popular is not a technical argument, but this is to be
considered :
1. the leader may not be technicaly stupid, beeing the leader
2. when used as a service, the documentation / good knoledge from
developer community is IMHO a big element to consider.
Sorry to say, but I allready had to learn Spring in deep,
some limited Plexus, and now OSGi, I won't look more at XBean until it gets
mainly used or comes with highly innovative features.
I agrea there is always room for competitors and that's a good thing to see
people come with new ideas and projects, but just some "nice" features is
not enough for me to choose a software, as what maven expect from it's
container is limited to simple IoC (no AOP, declarative TX, bytecode
instrumentation...) and advanced classloader/plugability. Only the second
criteria can help the choice, and OSGi seems to be the most promising
technology.
About "Maven wouldn't exist if that were the case", please remember Maven1
was desinged as a "let's share common ANT scripts" and envolved on this
basis, and Maven2 was a "lets take what was good in M1 and make it
stronger". You never build from scratch, but allways start from what is
considered good.
Today, what is considered good is
- about IoC : to be non-intrusive (plexus IS intrusive, as LogEnabled
demonstrates in most of classes) and to be compliant with the fiew existing
standards (JSR250 or other).
- about plugin-based-architecture : hot deployment, replacement and
concurrent versionning, with OSGI as the only recognized candidate (as JSR
for "java modules" is still WIP)
Nicolas.
2008/5/2 Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>:
> http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Hilco Wijbenga <hi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >
> > > And ultimately the container DI is not the important part but the
> > > implementations of our components. Using standard annotations for
> that is a
> > > good thing and that's not hard. XBR does full JEE injection and can
> manage
> > > any sort of annotation based DI because it's entirely agnostic. At
> any rate
> > > full support for that is now possible with XBR.
> >
> > XBR? I did some googling but all I could find (aside from lots of TVs)
> > was a reference to an apparently brand new Maven 2.1 project. No
> > website or anything. Where can I find more information?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hilco
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Hilco Wijbenga <hi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> <snip/>
>
> > And ultimately the container DI is not the important part but the
> > implementations of our components. Using standard annotations for that is a
> > good thing and that's not hard. XBR does full JEE injection and can manage
> > any sort of annotation based DI because it's entirely agnostic. At any rate
> > full support for that is now possible with XBR.
>
> XBR? I did some googling but all I could find (aside from lots of TVs)
> was a reference to an apparently brand new Maven 2.1 project. No
> website or anything. Where can I find more information?
>
> Cheers,
> Hilco
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Hilco Wijbenga <hi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
<snip/>
> And ultimately the container DI is not the important part but the
> implementations of our components. Using standard annotations for that is a
> good thing and that's not hard. XBR does full JEE injection and can manage
> any sort of annotation based DI because it's entirely agnostic. At any rate
> full support for that is now possible with XBR.
XBR? I did some googling but all I could find (aside from lots of TVs)
was a reference to an apparently brand new Maven 2.1 project. No
website or anything. Where can I find more information?
Cheers,
Hilco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven core : Plexus vs Spring / OSGi ?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 2-May-08, at 5:53 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
> [
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
> Note to plexus lovers :
> CONTROVERSAL PROPOSAL, please don't blame me and just give good
> arguments !
> [
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ]
>
> Maven is built on Plexus. This lightweight container is used (afaik)
> for :
> - simple (javadoc) annotation-based programming model
There are java5 annotations which Jason Dillon wrote, and they are
available for Mojos as well in the model that Yoav has placed JIRA.
>
> - lifecycle management
> - dependency injection
> - classloader isolation for plugins (using classworld)
>
> Let's now consider the today responses to the same requirements :
> - Since Java5, annotations are common, and JSR-250 introduces standard
> annotations that can address some basic lifecycle and IoC
> requirements.
> - The IoC container ecosystem is dominated by Springframework. Maybe
> not the
> best technical one for any reason, but the best documented and most
> know by
> developers.
I think it's really more then the JSR about a component model which is
now a little race between Spring, Guice, and OSGi. What's more
important, as Paul Hammant will also argue, is the interoperability of
the components. Important things like making the embedder usable in a
OSGi environment. These are the things that really matter.
>
> - Classloader isolation is very well adressed by OSGi, with the
> advantage of
> beeing a recognized standard, with many documentation AND business
> interest.
>
I'm definitely interested in the OSGi model for classloaders and I've
had more then one conversation with Jeff McAffer.
> Maybe Plexus was a very advanced container when it was created, but
> it did
> not become the today 1rst choice technology.
>
OpenEJB is using XBR, Geronimo is using XBR, and I'm happy using XBR
which is a project here at Apache where the degree of collaboration
can be much higher. What XBR is capable of is simply amazing, that it
was possible to swap in another DI engine without a _single_ change to
Maven is amazing. I am also more interested in collaborating with the
Pico community and bring together their world with ours.
> Considering an opensource tool like maven is built by volunteers
> developers,
> it would be a good thing to attract talentuous ones to use up-to-
> date and
> well known technologies. As an example, Archiva (trunk) is migrating
> to
> Spring as it's IoC container.
>
XBR is certainly up-to-date and probably one of the most advanced DI
libraries there is, Dain is at hand to help and he just finished doing
a lot of work to bring the DI capabilities up to the most advanced
there are.
I would counter Archiva with Nexus which is using Plexus and I believe
this makes it more flexible and will integrate with Maven far better.
I also have never bought the argument that what's popular is what's
best. Maven wouldn't exist if that were the case. There's always room
for competitors.
> Could we consider for future maven version (let's say 2.2, or "3.0"
> - as 2.1
> is allready in advanced development phase) to replace plexus with a
> combination of Java5 + Spring + OSGi ?
>
Java5 absolutely, that exists now and with the integration of XBR
there are no limitations. As far as Spring, that's honestly never
going to happen while I'm here because I will always argue that
something like XBR/Guice which is a DI library is more appropriate and
there is nothing Spring can do that XBR cannot do today in terms of
dependency injection. OSGi classloaders are definitely an option and
Eugene and Igor of m2eclipse already have some very cool tools that
are akin to Spring DM.
And ultimately the container DI is not the important part but the
implementations of our components. Using standard annotations for that
is a good thing and that's not hard. XBR does full JEE injection and
can manage any sort of annotation based DI because it's entirely
agnostic. At any rate full support for that is now possible with XBR.
> Nicolas. What
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
is responsible for the quality of the whole
-- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org