You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by John McNally <jm...@collab.net> on 2002/11/04 19:48:57 UTC
fulcrum's conversion to avalon
I have committed several "services" coverted to avalon components. I
have converted all but schedule, upload, xslt, and xmlrpc. I have
modified TurbineServices so that it will work with the new component
versions. I have also retained the old property file style
configuration along with the ability to configure using an xml file.
The reason for following this path is to allow current fulcrum users to
update with as little change to their application as possible. If your
application uses services where you have subclassed fulcrum services
they will now be avalon components. If your application has its own
fulcrum services, they can still be used alongside the converted
components. The only rule is that the avalon components and services
must be independent. So if you have a service that uses the factory
component for example, you will have to convert that service
immediately.
I will commit some changes to t3 that will use allow it to use the
latest fulcrum as soon as a fulcrum version is available for download by
maven. I'm not sure how we should mark milestones on this path.
Fulcrum is currently tagged 3.0-b2-dev. The beta's assumed little
change before a release to go with t2.2. I'm not sure that we want to
continue the beta numbering. Something like fulcrum-avalon-x where
x=1,2,3,... might be better. Since the components might eventually move
to a different repo, I don't know that there will be an official
release, but I still think it will be useful to have a few milestone's
as the conversion continues and before the components are possibly made
independent. Anyone have an opinion here?
I tagged the repo with PRE_AVALON for anyone wishing to grab a snapshot
prior to the conversion or branch to continue the beta's if that is
desired.
Other than the few services left, one thing that I have not sorted out
is logging, so the logging is now going to standard out.
john mcnally
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: fulcrum's conversion to avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 20:59, Peter Courcoux wrote:
> John,
>
> On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 19:32, John McNally wrote:
> > FulcrumContainer is based on ECM. My intention is to use a released
> > container and concentrate on converting the individual pieces. I assume
> > switching to Plexus or any of the other next-gen containers will be
> > reasonably straightforward from there. One possible problem is the use
> > of the ThreadSafe interface, which is used with ECM to get
> > singleton-like behavior. This matches fairly well with how fulcrum's
> > TurbineServices worked. I've seen that this interface is deprecated,
> > but I don't know why.
>
> I believe that the intention is to move towards pluggable lifestyle
> handlers declared in component meta-info, but that the embeddable
> containers based on fortress and merlin2 will honour the marker
> interfaces for lifestyle management.
yep. Threadsafe is a "marker interface", and we've declared those to be
the root of limited evil. There will be backwards compatibility though.
We've also generally determined the singleton service model is often too
limiting...you could read the avalon-dev archives on all that or just
ignore that....it works well for most webapps.
> I have seen comment indicating that fortress is close to a release!
yep. There's not too much work needing doing anymore, but the fortress
maintainers are kinda limited on time.
> Please note that I'm not an avalon expert and this info is just a result
> of too much time reading the avalon lists!
you can never spend too much time there :P
cheers,
Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: fulcrum's conversion to avalon
Posted by Peter Courcoux <pe...@courcouxhall.co.uk>.
John,
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 19:32, John McNally wrote:
> FulcrumContainer is based on ECM. My intention is to use a released
> container and concentrate on converting the individual pieces. I assume
> switching to Plexus or any of the other next-gen containers will be
> reasonably straightforward from there. One possible problem is the use
> of the ThreadSafe interface, which is used with ECM to get
> singleton-like behavior. This matches fairly well with how fulcrum's
> TurbineServices worked. I've seen that this interface is deprecated,
> but I don't know why.
I believe that the intention is to move towards pluggable lifestyle
handlers declared in component meta-info, but that the embeddable
containers based on fortress and merlin2 will honour the marker
interfaces for lifestyle management.
I have seen comment indicating that fortress is close to a release!
Please note that I'm not an avalon expert and this info is just a result
of too much time reading the avalon lists!
Peter
>
> john mcnally
>
> On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 11:09, Peter Courcoux wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > Which container are you using, ECM. Plexus?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 18:48, John McNally wrote:
> > > I have committed several "services" coverted to avalon components. I
> > > have converted all but schedule, upload, xslt, and xmlrpc. I have
> > > modified TurbineServices so that it will work with the new component
> > > versions. I have also retained the old property file style
> > > configuration along with the ability to configure using an xml file.
> > > The reason for following this path is to allow current fulcrum users to
> > > update with as little change to their application as possible. If your
> > > application uses services where you have subclassed fulcrum services
> > > they will now be avalon components. If your application has its own
> > > fulcrum services, they can still be used alongside the converted
> > > components. The only rule is that the avalon components and services
> > > must be independent. So if you have a service that uses the factory
> > > component for example, you will have to convert that service
> > > immediately.
> > >
> > > I will commit some changes to t3 that will use allow it to use the
> > > latest fulcrum as soon as a fulcrum version is available for download by
> > > maven. I'm not sure how we should mark milestones on this path.
> > > Fulcrum is currently tagged 3.0-b2-dev. The beta's assumed little
> > > change before a release to go with t2.2. I'm not sure that we want to
> > > continue the beta numbering. Something like fulcrum-avalon-x where
> > > x=1,2,3,... might be better. Since the components might eventually move
> > > to a different repo, I don't know that there will be an official
> > > release, but I still think it will be useful to have a few milestone's
> > > as the conversion continues and before the components are possibly made
> > > independent. Anyone have an opinion here?
> > >
> > > I tagged the repo with PRE_AVALON for anyone wishing to grab a snapshot
> > > prior to the conversion or branch to continue the beta's if that is
> > > desired.
> > >
> > > Other than the few services left, one thing that I have not sorted out
> > > is logging, so the logging is now going to standard out.
> > >
> > > john mcnally
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> > --
> > Peter Courcoux
> >
> > PGP key ID : 2E50A3C8
> > Telephone : 01923 661488
> > Mobile : 07880 605626
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
Peter Courcoux
PGP key ID : 2E50A3C8
Telephone : 01923 661488
Mobile : 07880 605626
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: fulcrum's conversion to avalon
Posted by John McNally <jm...@collab.net>.
FulcrumContainer is based on ECM. My intention is to use a released
container and concentrate on converting the individual pieces. I assume
switching to Plexus or any of the other next-gen containers will be
reasonably straightforward from there. One possible problem is the use
of the ThreadSafe interface, which is used with ECM to get
singleton-like behavior. This matches fairly well with how fulcrum's
TurbineServices worked. I've seen that this interface is deprecated,
but I don't know why.
john mcnally
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 11:09, Peter Courcoux wrote:
> John,
>
> Which container are you using, ECM. Plexus?
>
> Peter
>
> On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 18:48, John McNally wrote:
> > I have committed several "services" coverted to avalon components. I
> > have converted all but schedule, upload, xslt, and xmlrpc. I have
> > modified TurbineServices so that it will work with the new component
> > versions. I have also retained the old property file style
> > configuration along with the ability to configure using an xml file.
> > The reason for following this path is to allow current fulcrum users to
> > update with as little change to their application as possible. If your
> > application uses services where you have subclassed fulcrum services
> > they will now be avalon components. If your application has its own
> > fulcrum services, they can still be used alongside the converted
> > components. The only rule is that the avalon components and services
> > must be independent. So if you have a service that uses the factory
> > component for example, you will have to convert that service
> > immediately.
> >
> > I will commit some changes to t3 that will use allow it to use the
> > latest fulcrum as soon as a fulcrum version is available for download by
> > maven. I'm not sure how we should mark milestones on this path.
> > Fulcrum is currently tagged 3.0-b2-dev. The beta's assumed little
> > change before a release to go with t2.2. I'm not sure that we want to
> > continue the beta numbering. Something like fulcrum-avalon-x where
> > x=1,2,3,... might be better. Since the components might eventually move
> > to a different repo, I don't know that there will be an official
> > release, but I still think it will be useful to have a few milestone's
> > as the conversion continues and before the components are possibly made
> > independent. Anyone have an opinion here?
> >
> > I tagged the repo with PRE_AVALON for anyone wishing to grab a snapshot
> > prior to the conversion or branch to continue the beta's if that is
> > desired.
> >
> > Other than the few services left, one thing that I have not sorted out
> > is logging, so the logging is now going to standard out.
> >
> > john mcnally
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
> --
> Peter Courcoux
>
> PGP key ID : 2E50A3C8
> Telephone : 01923 661488
> Mobile : 07880 605626
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: fulcrum's conversion to avalon
Posted by Peter Courcoux <pe...@courcouxhall.co.uk>.
John,
Which container are you using, ECM. Plexus?
Peter
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 18:48, John McNally wrote:
> I have committed several "services" coverted to avalon components. I
> have converted all but schedule, upload, xslt, and xmlrpc. I have
> modified TurbineServices so that it will work with the new component
> versions. I have also retained the old property file style
> configuration along with the ability to configure using an xml file.
> The reason for following this path is to allow current fulcrum users to
> update with as little change to their application as possible. If your
> application uses services where you have subclassed fulcrum services
> they will now be avalon components. If your application has its own
> fulcrum services, they can still be used alongside the converted
> components. The only rule is that the avalon components and services
> must be independent. So if you have a service that uses the factory
> component for example, you will have to convert that service
> immediately.
>
> I will commit some changes to t3 that will use allow it to use the
> latest fulcrum as soon as a fulcrum version is available for download by
> maven. I'm not sure how we should mark milestones on this path.
> Fulcrum is currently tagged 3.0-b2-dev. The beta's assumed little
> change before a release to go with t2.2. I'm not sure that we want to
> continue the beta numbering. Something like fulcrum-avalon-x where
> x=1,2,3,... might be better. Since the components might eventually move
> to a different repo, I don't know that there will be an official
> release, but I still think it will be useful to have a few milestone's
> as the conversion continues and before the components are possibly made
> independent. Anyone have an opinion here?
>
> I tagged the repo with PRE_AVALON for anyone wishing to grab a snapshot
> prior to the conversion or branch to continue the beta's if that is
> desired.
>
> Other than the few services left, one thing that I have not sorted out
> is logging, so the logging is now going to standard out.
>
> john mcnally
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
Peter Courcoux
PGP key ID : 2E50A3C8
Telephone : 01923 661488
Mobile : 07880 605626
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>