geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cabrera, Alan" <Alan.Cabr...@reuters.com>
Subject FW: [vote]POJO design?
Date Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:31:50 GMT

[-1] Greg's patch: A single tree of standard & geronimo elements 
[+1] Aaron's/Jeremy's patch: Dual concrete trees 
[+0] Proposal of a concrete geronimo tree with abstract standard tree.

Mixing Geronimo deployment information w/ the standard deployment
information strikes me as an awkward setup.  One reason, which Aaron just
mentioned, is that it makes it difficult to know what is a Geronimo field
and which is a standard field.  I have another reason.

The other week, I brought up a scenario whereby I had envisioned two
different Geronimo trees, one for a simple deployment, e.g. on an IDE, the
other for a highly complex deployment on a clustered production environment.
I thought that it would probably be a good idea to have two concrete
Geronimo trees and a single concrete standard tree.  My argument being that
if it's a good idea to keep the standard and Geronimo fields separate, then
it would be a good idea to keep different kinds of Geronimo deployment types
separate.

There has been a lot of email on this subject and it is difficult for me to
keep up.  What are the use cases that we are using to evaluate these three
options?


Regards,
Alan


---------------------------------------------------------------- 
      Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com 

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit <http://www.reuters.com/messaging> 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual sender,
except  where  the sender specifically states them to be the views of The
Reuters Group.

Mime
View raw message