geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Java EE 5.0
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:44:33 GMT

I agree that if we're building a config for the JavaEE5 item then we can 
create a plugin.  I think the problem will come from those items that 
don't have a strong service-like runtime characteristics (such as the 
common annotations or JSTL) and therefore wouldn't normally be configs. 
   Perhaps we can/should force these to be configs just so that we can 
deliver them as plugins?

Joe


Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> There is no real difference between a plugin and a car.
> So if Geronimo can be built using cars, it surely can be built
> using plugins.  You just need to define the needed dependencies
> between the cars.  One problem will come from the console, which
> is not pluggable yet, but the portlets could be slightly enhanced
> to display nicely if a needed car (gbeans) is not available.
> 
> On 11/6/06, Jacek Laskowski <jacek@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/6/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I would much prefer that we develop each jee5 feature as a plugin and
>> > put each one -- modules and configs -- into a plugin in a  (new)
>> > plugins area.  Then we can move each current trunk feature into the
>> > plugins area one by one and actually get an improved organization.
>> > We could base assembly on the micro-g or have a separate jee5
>> > assembly area.
>>
>> Is the plugin feature strong enough to let us build one plugin for
>> each jee5 feature? Can we divide jee on such small parts that can be
>> represented as plugins? Won't there be any overlapping features that
>> won't be able to be build as plugins?
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> -- 
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.jaceklaskowski.pl
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message