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: [J2] Service Framework Proposal
Date Wed, 07 Jan 2004 05:36:00 GMT
Yes, the automatic JMX support in Cornerstone can be made independent of 
Cornerstone.  Emad Benjamin is the author of all that.

Jun

Weaver, Scott wrote:

>>>From what I have seen, Cornerstone has some nice JMX management pieces
>built-in.  We may want to look refactoring those JMX pieces out so they can
>be used standalone.  That way, if we choose a framework that does not have
>JMX built-in, we can easily lay the Conerstone JMX pieces over the top.
>
>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: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:12 AM
>>To: Jetspeed Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [J2] Service Framework Proposal
>>
>>Glenn,
>>
>>Some more details:
>>
>>- JMX: java management extensions.
>>
>>Here is a good overview of JMX:
>>http://www.ebizq.net/topics/objects_components/features/1738.html
>>
>>It basically allows you to manage your components once
>>deployed.
>>
>>- Self contained, self configurable component: what i
>>mean by that a component and its functionality can be
>>encapsulated as a "jar" file and easily reused.  Let's
>>take the persistence component (in J2 the persistence
>>plugin), assuming that you can just include the jar
>>file with its metadata when deploying that component,
>>it becomes straightforward to leverage it in the
>>portal framework and in portlets independently from
>>the portal framework. This is one possible scenario,
>>many others are possible.  A little bit what EJBs are
>>trying to achieve but wihtout the overhead.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>David.
>>
>>--- "Glenn R. Golden" <ggolden@umich.edu> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>David -
>>>
>>>Can you elaborate on a few of these areas:
>>>
>>>What exactly is JMX and what does supporting it mean
>>>for us?
>>>
>>>What are self contained / self configurable
>>>components?
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>- Glenn
>>>
>>>On Jan 4, 2004, at 9:45 AM, David Le Strat wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Glenn,
>>>>
>>>>This is the kind of debate we should be having.
>>>>Spring actually falls into the AOP/IoC realm
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>though
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Spring is actually much bigger than that as it
>>>>provides an MVC framework and so on.
>>>>
>>>>If we stick to IoC/AOP, whichever framework is
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>being
>>>      
>>>
>>>>used, I believe that IoC 2 or 3 are the best
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>choices
>>>      
>>>
>>>>as you don't need a ServiceManager or JNDI to
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>fetch
>>>      
>>>
>>>>the dependencies from.
>>>>
>>>>Spring also supports AOP and even has its own AOP
>>>>implementation.
>>>>
>>>>On the drawbacks side, using Spring you have to
>>>>provide quite a bit of component metadata (which I
>>>>don't think is really a big deal, but some people
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>may
>>>      
>>>
>>>>think so) and we would have to implement JMX
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>support.
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Another drawback of Spring seems to be the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>component
>>>      
>>>
>>>>configuration itself.  It does not seem possible
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>to
>>>      
>>>
>>>>allow deploying self contained components / self
>>>>configurable components.  Configuration seems to
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>be
>>>      
>>>
>>>>tight to the web application configuration
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>(through
>>>      
>>>
>>>>the applicationContext.xml).  So you would not be
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>able
>>>      
>>>
>>>>to package your application services independently
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>of
>>>      
>>>
>>>>the application.  Please correct me if I missed
>>>>something here.
>>>>
>>>>I have not implemented a service using Spring per
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>say.
>>>      
>>>
>>>> If we could work around the configuration issue
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>and
>>>      
>>>
>>>>JMX, Spring could actually be a good fit for
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Jetspeed.
>>>      
>>>
>>>> Any comments from others?
>>>>
>>>>Just my 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>>David.
>>>>
>>>>--- "Glenn R. Golden" <ggolden@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>David, and Jetspeed all -
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the proposal.  We are also evaluating
>>>>>component frameworks
>>>>>for our CHEF project, which has been based on
>>>>>Jetspeed 1 and the
>>>>>Jetspeed / Turbine service model, which seems a
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>type
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>1 IoC like Avalon.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am currently very interested in Spring's
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>component
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>framework, which
>>>>>can handle type 2 or 3 IoC.  You  mention it in
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>your
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>analysis, but did
>>>>>not end up recommending using it.  Any specific
>>>>>comments of the merits
>>>>>or problems of Spring, in general, and for
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Jetspeed?
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>- Glenn
>>>>>


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