geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [services] getting service developers started - the initial component model
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:22:24 GMT

On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 10:05  am, Pratik Patel wrote:

> I've been following this list for a few days and was worried that 
> everything would get bogged down in a religious debate over the 
> container framework to use. I've looked in great detail at all three 
> of the ones James mentioned (Avalon, Picocontainer, and Jetty-like JMX 
> kernel). The simple JMX container wins in this situation because it's 
> simple and allows the most flexibility for both Geronimo kernel 
> developers and service/module developers.

Agreed. This is my point entirely.

> This point summarizes everything nicely:
>
>> * once all the required deployment options are available (EAR, WAR, 
>> SAR) and the ClassLoader stuff is working along with the interceptor 
>> stack; folks can then refactor the container using some real J2EE 
>> services to improve the manageability & codebase - based on real 
>> refactoring of working code rather than too much up front design. 
>> Indeed we can take a TDD approach to refactoring the container. So 
>> rather than guessing what a J2EE container should look now, we can 
>> refactor as we get there to improve it.
>
>
> But I have to ask - why are there already plans for an interceptor 
> stack? I assume you mean AOP interceptors... Yes, it would be great to 
> apply some AOP, but aren't we putting the cart before the horse?

There's already an interceptor stack in CVS. It could be used in an AOP 
way but doesn't have to be.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Mime
View raw message