excalibur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: Avalon - moving away from ?
Date Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:03:28 GMT
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 09:27, Paul Hammant wrote:
> This is an enabler, not migration. We're facilitating alternate 
> deployment capabilities, not closing off current ones.

This makes so much sense for projects like Eve which attempt to enable
integration with everything under the sun.  As you know we have these
POJO's and separate wrappers for Avalon and eventually other IoC
frameworks.  This will even enable us to integrate into Geronimo perhaps
with GBean wrappers but I was told I may not need them since the POJO's
might be usable directly.

> As it would happen, I think the starting point is Cornerstone rather 
> than James. Again as an enabler.

Oh good thing you mentioned this.  Cornerstone is the missing link for
me in the POJO'ification process.  Obviously I depend on it and use it
with Avalon deployment.  However it would be nice to just have POJO
versions of the Cornerstone components.  This way they're as common as
using jakarta-commons classes without being tied to any component
framework.  Cornerstone I think would be used much more readily if this
were the case.

However I do have this one question which I should know but just in case
perhaps someone can clarify it.  Aren't the classes within the excalibur
libraries used to build the Cornerstone components the POJO's we're
looking for?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Apache Excalibur Project -- URL: http://excalibur.apache.org/

View raw message