portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jun Yang <juny...@cisco.com>
Subject Re: Service and Component Frameworks
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:59:32 GMT
David Le Strat wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Rest assured they will be separate.

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

Jun

>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 ===
>  
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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