geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Monson-Haefel <Rich...@Monson-Haefel.com>
Subject Re: Axioms for JCA implementation
Date Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:23:13 GMT
My 2 cents ...


On 8/24/03 11:46 PM, in article BAY8-DAV242dC8lU8WX000436a6@hotmail.com,
"kamesh kompella" 
<kompella_geronimo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>             There are some tests in place already under the
> incubator-geronimo\specs\j2ee-connector\src\test directory. However,  these
> are against the classes that are specified in the spec. Beyond these, as I see
> it, one can write all the tests one wants, (as they will be testing the
> interfaces)  but the more important path of figuring out what's to be done to
> make the implementations concrete has to be tread. There are several gaps in
> the connector specification that will need to be filled in. These are left out
> for the implementation. Further, we need to figure out the axioms for the
> system.
>  
> 1. What can we assume and program against? In other words, what are the givens
> and what is it we are trying to accomplish?

Support for arbitrary JCA 1.5 connectors (resources).

> 2. Are we going to provide hooks to let individual RAs or are we not going to
> do any implementation there at all? In fact, what is the purview of this
> project vis-a-vis the implementation? Are we going to limit ourselves to
> simply implementing the contract from the app server side?  I do realize that
> providing an implementation for each EIS there is, is hard.
> 
At a minimum we should provide a JCA RA for OpenJMS. This will allow us to
use that impl for MDBs and as the default JMS provider. Last time I checked,
the JMS API wasn¹t explicitly aligned with JCA 1.5, but I don¹t think that
will be a problem to work around.
> 
> 3. The spec does not require that the CCI need be supported. In the light of
> this information, are we planning on evolving an API?
> 
Personally, I don¹t think the CCI offers much value. Most Ras will have very
specific APIs. I think we should avoid supporting it.
> 
> 4. In any case, we will need to write dummy RAs that will ensure that our
> tests run. We will also need to supply other components that will become a
> reality eventually when other groups fill in.
>  
> I recall having have heard certain other ideas that are outside the scope of
> the spec per se but seem to be the responsibility of the implementation group.
> I was wondering if anybody can fill me in on these.
>  
> In short, since this is a spec that is pretty much laid out, with most of the
> work being done by the third parties or first parties which ever you feel like
> calling it, I see little reason for not getting the ball rolling. This is, of
> course, my 2 cents, and I could be splashing my ignorance for all and sundry
> to wallow in. If that is the case, please enjoy the humor I provided and don't
> forget to mail me the check. :)
> 
I would advise that we wait until the core architecture of Geronoimo is
established. There is still debate about how the kernel should be
implemented, and this will have a direct impact on the JCA support in
Geronimo.  That said, I don¹t think there is any harm in getting started on
the dummy RAs (one sync and the other async) since this will take some time
and will be extremely useful for testing once development does begin.
>  
> -k
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Nick Faiz <mailto:nick.faiz@ce.com.au>
>> To: 'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
>> <mailto:'geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org'>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:45 PM
>> Subject: Newcomers being useful
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>             I'm another newcomer. When time permits, I think it would be
>> helpful to give newcomers a clearer insight into what is needed for the
>> project. For example, I'd be happy to write unit tests but how do I know that
>> another developer is not doing the same thing at the same time somewhere
>> else? On the other hand, if someone needs a hand with something like that,
>> please let me know.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>             I'm looking forward to Alex Rupp's design documents ...
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>             My current goal is to keep an up to date build, learn the design,
>> etc.. Hopefully, when things settle down, it will become clearer for the
>> uninitiated how to participate.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nick Faiz.      
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Siva [mailto:siva@sivasundaram.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 25 August 2003 4:40 AM
>> To: geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
>> Subject: Contribute [Was Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part]
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> IMO,the best way to start contributing is to read the codebase and write unit
>> tests for it.This way you can start understanding the
>> 
>> system and help the system evolve towards a TDD.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Siva
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> 
>>> From: kamesh kompella
>>> <mailto:kompella_geronimo@hotmail.com>
>>> 
>>> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> <mailto:geronimo-devÑGL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
>>> 
>>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:05 AM
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: Who are working on the JCA integration part
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>    I am interested in contributing. I have added my name and I was perusing
>>> through the cvs. Can somebody let me know the current status and where I can
>>> jump in?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Kamesh
> 



Mime
View raw message