geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: geronimo and avalon?
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:13:44 GMT
Jason Dillon wrote:

>> Nope, no conclusion. Well, the only significant one perhaps is that 
>> building a J2EE suite on top of the framework avalon provides is 
>> definately possible. I am not going to get mingled in the debate of 
>> whether that is a good idea (me, I think a JMX-based microkernel 
>> remains a bad idea, even though it is working so well for JBoss. But 
>> that's just me ;).
> Can you explain why you believe that a JMX-based micro-kernel is a bad 
> idea?

Yes, I could explain.

one question first: do you think it is a good idea to get into longwinded
theoretical/architectural kernel design discussions at this point? Will it
help geronimo get of the ground better / quicker? My ideas on software
archictecture might fill a book, yours too, and before you know it
geronimo spends a year coming up with a 0.1 release :D

>> Just know some of the avalon regular are listening in with an 
>> interested ear to hear what's all the fuzz about ye olde Indian war 
>> chief, and we're more than willing to help you evaluate what stuff 
>> (if any) you want to use from the avalon project. And we can probably 
>> leave y'all completely alone, too, if desired ;)
> I have had a look at Avalon several times in the past and very 
> recently looked over some of the web pages... and my general feeling 
> is that it is too bloated

bloated? Hmm. I can see how you would get that impression from
a quick glance at all avalon subprojects at once (we certainly have
a lot of code, all in all). I am guessing though that if you download
a single container distributable (say,,
you'll find it rather compact and picky about what it does and does
not do.

> and does not provide some core functionality which Geronimo will 
> probably want to have.

I'll bet the farm (no, I think I'll bet a shoe) on that!

> I am not against looking into or even using a pre-existing system such 
> Avalon for the core component framework for Geronimo, but I am very 
> skeptical about how feasible it will be to implement.
> I am very familiar with the core systems of JBoss, and hope to 
> implement a similar yet enhanced loading, component model and 
> deployment system.  It does not appear that any one system has all of 
> the bases covered, which would mean that we would have a lot of 
> hacking work to get something integrated and functional. 

looking at the amount of energy geronimo has gathered in 24 hours,
I think you guys don't have to worry about too little hands to take on
a task ;)

> Anyways, perhaps we should start out with and outline of the core 
> system services for Geronimo and the requirements for each, and then 
> we can see which systems may be suitable for integration.

sounds like a plan. I'll be lurking :D


- Leo

View raw message