Geronimo 2.x kernel and 3.0 backward compatible

[Ming Qin <mi...@yahoo.com>]

Geronimo Developers:

   I am seeking a java
microkernel-based implementation as foundation for proprietary software product
which will have a long life cycle crossing 10 years or even more.  Geronimo microkernel (without OSGI ) seems
very intuitive to me with its features IOC , GBean , Module and Assembly.

After downloading source code 3.o-M1, 2.2.1 and reading
David Jencks’ slides-“Geronimo 3 JavaEE6 OSGI”. I would like to submit three
questions about Geronimo kernel features.

1.     
 If I don’t
want all OSGI enhancements in Geronimo 3, 
and just like to be stick with Geronimo 2.x kernel, which branch or tag
should I work with in order to get most updated and completed maturity on advanced
features of Module and Assembly?

2.     
 Is there
any efforts being poured towards Geronimo 2.x  by Geronimo community in the sense of bug
fixing, plug-in adding, technical supporting and releasing new branch of
Geronimo 2.x?  

3.     
Is Geronimo 3.0 preserving  2.x 
backward compatibility?




Ming Qin
Cell Phone 858-353-2839

Re: Geronimo 2.x kernel and 3.0 backward compatible

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I'm glad you like our geronimo 2.x architecture, but I would give very serious consideration to using osgi.    In my opinion osgi does pretty much everything we were trying to do with the geronimo kernel/gbean/configuration structure but better and it has a lot of momentum and a pretty large and enthusiastic community behind it.

Geronimo 2.2 kernel etc works great but I think it is extremely unlikely to be updated significantly, made to work well with java 7, etc.  If you want to maintain it I would imagine that after a couple patches we'll make you a committer but I would be surprised if there was a lot of community support.

Apache karaf 3 (trunk) now has most of the maven-friendly tooling corresponding to the geronimo tooling.  I'm extending it and working the bugs out and expect it to be more powerful than the geronimo tooling soon.

thanks
david jencks


On Mar 12, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ming Qin wrote:

> Geronimo Developers:
> 
>    I am seeking a java microkernel-based implementation as foundation for proprietary software product which will have a long life cycle crossing 10 years or even more.  Geronimo microkernel (without OSGI ) seems very intuitive to me with its features IOC , GBean , Module and Assembly.
> 
> After downloading source code 3.o-M1, 2.2.1 and reading David Jencks’ slides-“Geronimo 3 JavaEE6 OSGI”. I would like to submit three questions about Geronimo kernel features.
> 
> 1.       If I don’t want all OSGI enhancements in Geronimo 3,  and just like to be stick with Geronimo 2.x kernel, which branch or tag should I work with in order to get most updated and completed maturity on advanced features of Module and Assembly?
> 
> 2.       Is there any efforts being poured towards Geronimo 2.x  by Geronimo community in the sense of bug fixing, plug-in adding, technical supporting and releasing new branch of Geronimo 2.x?  
> 
> 3.      Is Geronimo 3.0 preserving  2.x  backward compatibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ming Qin
> Cell Phone 858-353-2839

Re: Geronimo 2.x kernel and 3.0 backward compatible

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Mar 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ming Qin wrote:

> Geronimo Developers:
> 
>    I am seeking a java microkernel-based implementation as foundation for proprietary software product which will have a long life cycle crossing 10 years or even more.  Geronimo microkernel (without OSGI ) seems very intuitive to me with its features IOC , GBean , Module and Assembly.

Thanks. 

> 
> After downloading source code 3.o-M1, 2.2.1 and reading David Jencks’ slides-“Geronimo 3 JavaEE6 OSGI”. I would like to submit three questions about Geronimo kernel features.
> 
> 1.       If I don’t want all OSGI enhancements in Geronimo 3,  and just like to be stick with Geronimo 2.x kernel, which branch or tag should I work with in order to get most updated and completed maturity on advanced features of Module and Assembly?

For your purposes, I'd recommend 2.2.x. Though 2.1.x could be used, also. To evaluate 3.0, I'd recommend our branches/3.0-M2 branch (or trunk). Note that we're still anticipating some significant changes to 3.0 (for instance, GBeans are likely to go away...).

> 2.       Is there any efforts being poured towards Geronimo 2.x  by Geronimo community in the sense of bug fixing, plug-in adding, technical supporting and releasing new branch of Geronimo 2.x?  

Yes. We're still seeing bug fixes to 2.1.x and 2.2.x. And I expect that we'll see additional 2.1.x and/or 2.2.x releases. If there is sufficient interest/demand, a 2.3 release could be developed (although I don't recall that anyone's expressed interest in this, so far). If you and/or others wanted to participate in the community to achieve this, I doubt that there would be any objections. 

> 3.      Is Geronimo 3.0 preserving  2.x  backward compatibility?

No. Not at a kernel/gbean level. "Applications" should be compatible, but may require migration of deployment plans. 

--kevan