portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weaver, Scott" <Swea...@rippe.com>
Subject RE: [J2] Service Framework Proposal
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:35:09 GMT
Spring also seems to be very bloated out of the box.  There is a lot of
stuff there that we just don't need or want.

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: Sunday, January 04, 2004 9:46 AM
> To: Jetspeed Developers List
> Subject: Re: [J2] Service Framework Proposal
> 
> 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
> >
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

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