geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Whence the geronimo kernel?
Date Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:56:35 GMT
Geronimo has been around for a while and despite the many good  
features gbeans and the geronimo kernel are not catching on big time.   
I think we want to consider taking action now to avoid ending up being  
dragged down by supporting a dead container.  Here are a few thoughts.

Actual problems with geronimo:
- gbeans are too restrictive.  It's too hard to instantiate other  
peoples components as gbeans.  GBeans don't support common patterns  
like factory methods, factory beans, etc etc, and require the  
component to be instantiated directly by the gbean framework.
- it's too hard to get the classloaders to work.  The most common  
problem is a class cast exception due to loading the same jar in two  
plugins.  NoClassDefFound errors from an optional jar in a child  
classloader are also really annoying.

Really good things about geronimo I haven't seen elsewhere (at least  
in one place):
- gbean dependencies work across plugins.  Dependencies are a unified  
system, not per-plugin.
- gbean dependencies are resolved in the ancestors of a plugin, not  
server wide.  This means that you can't make a partially specified  
dependency ambiguous by deploying additional plugins.  I consider this  
an extremely important feature for predictability.
- plugin dependencies allow assembly of a server from the explicit  
dependencies which are normally the same as the maven dependencies.

Other projects and specs that have stuff we should look into:
maven.  Maven has a lot better infrastructure for dealing with  
dependency resolution from partial transitive dependency specification  
than we do.  We should look into using more of their infrastructure.
osgi. osgi has a lot of similarities to geronimo. The osgi  
classloading model is getting a lot of people excited.  The import- 
bundle idea is pretty much the same as our classloader model where  
every jar is a plugin.  I don't know if people are really using the  
allegedly recommended method of specifying imports and exports and  
letting the osgi runtime figure out where they come from; this seems  
worth investigating to me. Also, we get periodic inquiries about when  
we are going to support osgi and the was ce folks get even more.
osgi blueprint service (rfc 124) This appears to be a simple wiring  
framework for a single plugin.  IIUC it uses the osgi service registry  
for component dependencies between bundles.
xbean-spring.  I'd be reluctant to try to implement a blueprint  
service that didn't provide the xbean-spring capabilities really well
ee6 dependency injection.  EE6 is going to have a pretty sophisticated  
dependency injection service which we'll need to support anyway.  We  
should try to figure out how much of the core we can assemble using it.

Other great stuff we have:
xbean-reflect, xbean-finder, xbean-spring

These ideas have been floating around in my head for a long time and  
I've chatted with various people about them occasionally.   While more  
discussion is certainly needed on everything here I need to do some  
implementation to understand much more.  So, what I'm planning to do:

Dave's crazy work plan...
- Try to use the osgi classloader.  I think this involves putting the  
classloader creation in Configuration into a service.  Configurations  
will turn into osgi bundles.  I'll put the Kernel in the osgi  
ServiceRegistry so the Configuration bundle activator should be able  
to use it to resolve cross-plugin dependencies.
- try to figure out how maven dependency resolution fits into osgi.
- see if eclipse p2 is relevant for provisioning geronimo repositories

at this point I think geronimo would be running on osgi, still using  

- look into relaxing the gbean framework so it is more plugin-at-a- 
time rather than gbean-at-a-time
- see how that differs from the blueprint service, ee DI, and xbean- 
spring.  Try to support all of these at once.

Thoughts? Counter proposals?  Anyone interested?

many thanks
david jencks

View raw message