portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Le Strat <dlest...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:53:20 GMT
Bill,

Thanks for pointing this out. It indeed looks quite
interesting.

In terms of choosing a service and component
framework, how will the decision process be handled?

Also, there seems to be at least 3 possible service
framework choices from Apache (Avalon, Hivemind, and
J2 Cornerstone).  We may want to discuss the point
made by Dion earlier in this thread.

1. If Jetspeed decides to go with Cornerstone, it
would be nice to separate the service framework from
the portal project.  The service framework could be
leveraged by many other projects.

2. Is there any drive in the Apache community to
leverage a common service framework so that projects
can leverage each other services?

I am not sure how the community should address this
but I believe those are quite important points as we
move forward.  It may (or may not) be detrimental to
Jetspeed to lock itself in a Jetspeed specific service
framework.  We should at least discuss and understand
the implication of such a move.

Thoughts?

David.

--- Barnhill William <barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:
> For #5, has anyone looked into connecting the WSIF
> project ( 
> http://ws.apache.org/wsif/ ) into Cornerstone as a
> service factory? And 
> what does everyone think about the advisability of
> doing that?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> David Le Strat wrote:
> 
> >Scott,
> >
> >I agree with you on those. A couple more features
> >could be:
> >
> >5. The service framework provides the ability to
> web
> >service enable services.
> >
> >6. The service framework provides the ability to
> >monitor the services performance.
> >
> >I am not sure what others think but I feel that
> some
> >type of interceptor framework would be quite
> >important.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >David.
> >
> >--- "Weaver, Scott" <Sweaver@rippe.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>>What would be the key features that we would be
> >>>looking for?
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>This is me speaking, but I am sure others feel the
> >>same:
> >>
> >>1.  Transparent JMX management of deployed
> modules.
> >>2.  Hot deploy and hot configuration.  No more
> stop
> >>container, change 
> >>    property(ies), restart container, wash, rinse,
> >>repeat.  Gawd, that's a  
> >>    HUGE PITA!
> >>3.  The use of POJOs as components would be a nice
> >>feature but isn't really 
> >>    a deal breaker. 
> >>4.  Self-contained deployment either via jar or
> some
> >>other container/archive 
> >>    mechanism.  Each module would have its own
> >>config file included.  No 
> >>    more sifting through unwieldy properties
> files. 
> >>This also makes 
> >>    updating from the CVS easier you don't have to
> >>worry about 
> >>    dif'ing out all the changes you made that will
> >>more than likely conflict
> >>    with the CVS.  You obviously have to perform
> >>some dif'ing, but in 
> >>    smaller more manageable chunks.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>*================================* 
> >>| Scott T Weaver                 |
> >>| <weaver@apache.org>            | 
> >>| Apache Jetspeed Portal Project |
> >>| Apache Pluto Portlet Container |
> >>*================================*
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: David Le Strat [mailto:dlestrat@yahoo.com]
> >>>Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:44 AM
> >>>To: Jetspeed Developers List
> >>>Subject: Re: Service and Component Frameworks
> >>>
> >>>All,
> >>>
> >>>There is a lot of good info comparing the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>differences
> >>    
> >>
> >>>between frameworks at:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
>
>http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Architecture_2fKernel
> >  
> >
> >>>Regarding Hivemind, Howard gave a presentation a
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>while
> >>    
> >>
> >>>back, some more info on Hivemind can be found at:
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/jetspeed-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg08269.html
> >  
> >
> >>>It is a neat framework and hopefully the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>intellectual
> >>    
> >>
> >>>property issue will be resolved soon.  I
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>especially
> >>    
> >>
> >>>like the clean interceptor model.  The
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>substitution
> >>    
> >>
> >>>model would also be quite handy to create clean
> >>>separated modules and substitute common
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>configuration
> >>    
> >>
> >>>from a central configuration point. Finally
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Hivedoc is
> >>    
> >>
> >>>quite nice in providing a clear picture of the
> >>>dependencies between modules.
> >>>
> >>>Another interesting approach (which is the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>approach
> >>    
> >>
> >>>taken by ExoPortal for instance) would be to
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>combine
> >>    
> >>
> >>>AOP with Pico container or Avalon (Merlin seems
> to
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>be
> >>    
> >>
> >>>the recommended service framework).
> >>>
> >>>Lots of choices out there.
> >>>
> >>>What would be the key features that we would be
> >>>looking for?
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>
> >>>David.
> >>>
> >>>--- David Sean Taylor <david@bluesunrise.com>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>Im starting a little informal thread discussing
> >>>>Service and Component
> >>>>Frameworks.
> >>>>
> >>>>Currently we are using Fulcrum in Jetspeed-2.
> >>>>While I do like Fulcrum and it has been very
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>useful
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>for us, there are
> >>>>now more advanced service frameworks available.
> >>>>All services in J2 are implemented as Common
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message