geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: 1.1 progress
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:55:29 GMT

On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> Wouldn't it be cleaner if we just walked the tree using plain old  
> java objects?

I don't understand how the console works well enough to judge.  In  
particular I'm not sure if doing this would break the apparent  
capability of the console to work on a remote kernel using proxies.   
I'm hoping Aaron will tell us that we can use POJOs :-)

thanks
david jencks

>
> -dain
>
> On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> new1 (geronimo modules and plugins) now compiles w/tests (at least  
>> on osx)
>> Dain is working on new2 (openejb)
>> I'm starting to try to get new3 (primarily the console) to  
>> compile.  I don't expect to try to get the console to work before  
>> fixing new4 and new5 and getting the server to boot.
>>
>> IIUC the console uses ObjectNames internally to navigate between  
>> components (in KernelManagementHelper).  I'm going to try  
>> converting these to use AbstractNames.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>


Mime
View raw message