OpenEJB

[Michael Turilin <mt...@hotbox.ru>]

Why OpenEJB container doesn't used as EJB Container in Geronimo
project?

As I understand Richard Monson-Haefel now is in the team
and maybe he could donate existing and WORKING container
for further development and Geronimo won't need Elba and JBoss
to make it's upcoming components useful...

Or I miss something?

Best regards,
Michael Turilin

Re: OpenEJB

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@coredevelopers.net>]

I had a long chat with David Blevins (admin on OpenEJB) to bring him up 
to speed on what is going on.  He unfortunately was out of the country 
this week, so you haven't seen anything from him yet.  Please rest 
assured that we are working on bringing together the best ideas from 
both projects.  Since we both live in Minneapolis (and hangout at the 
same coffee shops), you should expect to see a lot of collaboration 
between the two old teams.

<soap-box>
I hope we can begin to refer to our selves as the Geronimo team instead 
of identifying with the old projects.
</soap-box>

On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 03:34 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Richard,
>
>> The current thinking now, however, is to create a new container system
>> based on an architecture that more closely related to what JBoss did
>> - Dain can speek more on this topic.

Actually, the old JBoss container was very similar to the OpenEJB 
container (there was a fair amount of developer camp switching in the 
early days).  The main difference between the two seems to be naming.

>> I think starting fresh with good ideas from both JBoss and OpenEJB
>> development communities is a good way to go.  Both architectures had
>> advantages. It would be nice if we created something that leverages
>> all that we know about EJB container systems.
>
> I agree with you about reserving judgement, and also giving the 
> project time
> to bring in some code and then start morphing, but your idea that the
> container should be about supporting pluggable services resonates with 
> me.
> Probably also with the Avalon folks, since a lot of discussion this 
> year has
> been on installable container services.  From what I've read so far in
> messages on the list plug and play of services within the container is 
> a
> fairly common desire.  So hopefully over the fullness of time, that's 
> what
> we'll have.

I think this is already happening.  One thing J2EE has really been 
missing is a truly pluggable server components.  Some projects are 
closer then others to achieving this, but usually when you get to 
swapping out component you find that they are highly coupled.  I think 
if we achieve true pluggability it will really open up this project to 
an even larger number of ideas (just like eclipse has done to the IDE 
world).

-dain

RE: OpenEJB

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Richard,

> The current thinking now, however, is to create a new container system
> based on an architecture that more closely related to what JBoss did
> - Dain can speek more on this topic.

> I think starting fresh with good ideas from both JBoss and OpenEJB
> development communities is a good way to go.  Both architectures had
> advantages. It would be nice if we created something that leverages
> all that we know about EJB container systems.

I agree with you about reserving judgement, and also giving the project time
to bring in some code and then start morphing, but your idea that the
container should be about supporting pluggable services resonates with me.
Probably also with the Avalon folks, since a lot of discussion this year has
been on installable container services.  From what I've read so far in
messages on the list plug and play of services within the container is a
fairly common desire.  So hopefully over the fullness of time, that's what
we'll have.

	--- Noel

Re: OpenEJB

[Richard Monson-Haefel <Ri...@Monson-Haefel.com>]

I'm no expert in JMX, but I believe that OpenEJB could easily be adapted to
become a service (MBean) which could than seamlessly plug into any JMX system,
not just Geronimo. Provided that the EJB facilities in Geronimo work as
services, the architecture would already be in place if OpenEJB was to become
more up to date.  The current thinking now, however, is to create a new
container system based on an architecture that more closely related to what
JBoss did - Dain can speek more on this topic. I haven't seen it yet, so I'll
reserve judgment until I do, but I think starting fresh with good ideas from
both JBoss and OpenEJB development communities is a good way to go.  Both
architectures had advantages. It would be nice if we created something that
leverages all that we know about EJB container systems.

Aaron Mulder wrote:

>         You missed the fact that OpenEJB doesn't qualify as a "working"
> container...  And I say that as a contributor, not to be mean.  It's
> generally aimed at 1.1 and there are some major features currently missing
> (like security).  This is not to say the energy couldn't be put there
> instead of elsewhere to turn out the EJB container for Geronimo, but
> personally I'm waiting to see what the imported code looks like before I
> start arguing one way or another.  Ideally, we'd end up with the best of
> both worlds (or next best, two worlds that are drop-in replacements).  I
> don't want to see anyone's energy squashed.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Michael Turilin wrote:
> > Why OpenEJB container doesn't used as EJB Container in Geronimo
> > project?
> >
> > As I understand Richard Monson-Haefel now is in the team
> > and maybe he could donate existing and WORKING container
> > for further development and Geronimo won't need Elba and JBoss
> > to make it's upcoming components useful...
> >
> > Or I miss something?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Michael Turilin
> >
> >

--
Richard Monson-Haefel
Author of J2EE Web Services (Addison-Wesley 2003)
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 3rd Edition  (O'Reilly 2001)
Co-Author of Java Message Service (O'Reilly 2000)
http://www.Monson-Haefel.com

Re: OpenEJB

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

	You missed the fact that OpenEJB doesn't qualify as a "working"  
container...  And I say that as a contributor, not to be mean.  It's
generally aimed at 1.1 and there are some major features currently missing
(like security).  This is not to say the energy couldn't be put there
instead of elsewhere to turn out the EJB container for Geronimo, but
personally I'm waiting to see what the imported code looks like before I
start arguing one way or another.  Ideally, we'd end up with the best of
both worlds (or next best, two worlds that are drop-in replacements).  I 
don't want to see anyone's energy squashed.

Aaron

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Michael Turilin wrote:
> Why OpenEJB container doesn't used as EJB Container in Geronimo
> project?
> 
> As I understand Richard Monson-Haefel now is in the team
> and maybe he could donate existing and WORKING container
> for further development and Geronimo won't need Elba and JBoss
> to make it's upcoming components useful...
> 
> Or I miss something?
> 
> Best regards,
> Michael Turilin
> 
>