geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Bernard Stefani <>
Subject RE: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components & Apache/OW collaboration
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:34:38 GMT
Miros, Alfred,

These are very inteesting suggestions. Let me just add a couple of remarks:

- The general policy wrt ObjectWeb license holds for Jonas as well, i.e. if
Geronimo requests a change of licence in order to package Jonas in an ASF
software, we will definitely consider it.

- In general coopetition is good, even among the open source community. I
think it is of the best interest of ASF and ObjectWeb to cooperate as much
as possible because deep expertise is not necessarily that common.

- The 'glue' aspects you mention, which have to do with what I would call
'componentization aspects' of the software (e.g. plug-ins, services,
deployment and installation, management, etc) are indeed not covered by the
J2EE specs and it could prove beneficial to informally standardize at that

- BTW, that's part of the reason behind the push in ObjectWeb towards the
creation of component-based middleware (the idea that you can assemble your
favorite middleware, including a J2EE middleware out of lower-level
software components). This is definitely an area where it would be
interesting to see ASF and ObjectWeb cooperate. It is interesting to note
that we have two different efforts which are directly relevant here: the
Avalon project in ASF and the Fractal project in ObjectWeb. Their scope is
not necessarily identical but there are obvious common threads between the

Best regards,


At 16:05 +0200 7/10/03, Madl Alfred wrote:
>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 []
>Sent: Dienstag, 07. Oktober 2003 15:49
>To: Brian Behlendorf; Jean-Bernard Stefani;;
>Subject: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components
>& Apache/OW collaboration
> > > > maybe this is a silly question, but somewhere
> > > > ( I
> > > > read that one of the main purposes behind starting Geronimo
> > project was
> > > > absence of ASF (or BSD like) licensed J2EE server. If Objectweb
> > > > 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,
> > > small runtime memory size versus everything else.  Furthermore, if
> > > 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
> > > 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
>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
> to ensure interoperability. It may be beneficial
>to come up with 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

Jean-Bernard STEFANI
Research Director, SARDES Project
INRIA Rhône-Alpes
655, avenue de l'Europe
38334 St Ismier Cedex
tel : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 57
fax : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 52
email :

View raw message