geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Miroslav Halas <object...@bastafidli.com>
Subject RE: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components & Apache/OW collaboration
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:12:18 GMT
Exactly! Too bad I cannot say it in 4 lines the way you do ;-)

Miro

Madl Alfred wrote on 10/7/2003, 9:05 AM:

 > Hi !
 >
 > There is even no reason why not to have alternatives for the "glue"
 > also. But it would be nice to have a COMPATIBLE services architecture
 > (are there any standards / JSRs for that ?) to have some kind of
 > plug&play between Jonas and Geronimo services.
 >
 > Just my 2 cents...
 >
 > Alfred Madl
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Miroslav Halas [mailto:objectweb@bastafidli.com]
 > Sent: Dienstag, 07. Oktober 2003 15:49
 > To: Brian Behlendorf; Jean-Bernard Stefani; gstein@collab.net;
 > Jean-Pierre.Laisne@bull.net; architecture@objectweb.org;
 > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org; jonas@objectweb.org
 > Subject: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components
 > & Apache/OW collaboration
 >
 >
 > > > > maybe this is a silly question, but somewhere
 > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo-proposal.html) I
 > have
 > > > > read that one of the main purposes behind starting Geronimo
 > > project was
 > > > > absence of ASF (or BSD like) licensed J2EE server. If Objectweb
 > is
 > > > > willing to change license on some of its components, maybe it
 > > would be
 > > > > possible to change the license of Jonas as well.
 > > > > Question: Would that be possible / feasible at all ?
 > > > I can't speak for ObjectWeb on licensing all of JOnAS under the
 > BSD.  I
 > > > can say that even if they were to do so, there might still be good
 > > reason
 > > > to have an more than one BSD-licensed Sun-certified J2EE server.
 > > > "Duplication of effort" should be avoided of course, but even when
 > > writing
 > > > standards-conformant software, there can be genuinely different
 > > approaches
 > > > with different tradeoffs - speed vs. code complexity, for example,
 > or
 > > > small runtime memory size versus everything else.  Furthermore, if
 > two
 > > > teams are separately trying to solve the same problem, your odds of
 > > > finding the right answer are greater than if you just had one team
 > of
 > > > similar size, and both teams can probably enjoy the fruits of the
 > > winning
 > > > team's efforts.
 > >
 >
 > Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no reason to object to competition
 >
 > which usually results in improvement of both sides and benefits users
 > (once they get past the point of figuring out what to support and how
 > ;-).
 >
 > I am just trying to understand what is (or suppose to be) the difference
 >
 > between Jonas and Geronimo.
 >
 > In my understanding J2EE server consists of set of services implementing
 >
 > individual pieces of the J2EE stack and "glue" which puts them together.
 >
 > Design and implementation of individual services have the most impact on
 >
 > performance and functionality of the server once the server is running.
 > The "glue" has most impact on usability, managability and performance of
 >
 > such things as server startup.
 >
 > My point is that if you want to replace the individual services, why
 > don't use the "glue" from jonas. If you want to replace the "glue" why
 > don't use the complete set of services from jonas. This way you may be
 > able to get towards usable outcome faster and both communities can
 > benefit.
 >
 > Jonas was already designed and implemented with notion of plug-in
 > services. Proof of it is that it supports Jetty and Tomcat at the same
 > time. It is just to the benefit of Jonas (and it's users) to support any
 >
 > other services which would come as outcome of Geronimo if they are
 > better that it's own and vice versa.
 >
 > Just in idea, maybe the best way is to learn from KDE/Gnome coexistance.
 >
 > They both follow specifications and standards set by
 > http://freedesktop.org/ to ensure interoperability. It may be beneficial
 >
 > to come up with http://freej2ee.org/ setting up standards for
 > interoperability of free j2ee implementations (either of glue or pieces
 > of the stack) to make easier for all implementors to support/reuse each
 > other's pieces. This can for example specify what form individual
 > services take (e.g. interfaces to manage them) and what form the glue
 > take. Lots of this is probably set by different JSR's but I am not
 > following it to so much details so know if it even specifies details how
 >
 > to reuse implementations of j2ee stack.
 >
 > In any case, these are exciting times and I am glad I can be part of ti
 > ;-)
 >
 > Miro
 >
 >
 >




Mime
View raw message