geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James deGraft-Johnson" <>
Subject RE: Kernel Architecture
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:36:59 GMT

I like the suggestion that even if we decide to go with the MBean model, a
layer be created, possibly via an interface so this software isn't tightly
coupled to MBeans.

Whatever we do, the ease of implementation, such as ease of kernel and
service development should be paramount. The easier it is to develop, the
greater the chances that we can focus on removing bugs and increasing
performance. (In particular, by ease I mean the extra code and it's
complexity needed to integrate kernel/service implementation into the
framework.) I think this requirement should be weighed against other
benefits of the alternative architectures.

James deGraft-Johnson
Software Engineer - IT
Verizon Information Services
Tel:         (240) 456-7018
Fax:        (240) 456-7072
Mobile:   (240) 475-1444 <>

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Blewitt []
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: Kernel Architecture (was [Re: JMX as a kernel ...])

I'd recommend having separate pages for each type, rather than
everything in one page.

I'd also like to suggest that there are different groups of
architectures, such as a MicroKernel architecture (of which Avalon and
HiveMind may be examples).


On Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003, at 12:58 Europe/London, Richard Monson-Haefel

> I've put the the skeleton of a new Wiki page to discuss the different
> kernel solutions proposed. It would be very helpful if supporters of
> each solution could post a description (plain english please) as well
> as pros and cons for any solution ... please add any solutions that
> I've missed. This will give us a better framework around which to
> discuss this topic.
> See the Kernel page listed from the Architecture page.
> .

View raw message