incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: [vote] Propose OpenEJB for graduation to a TLP
Date Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:23:41 GMT

On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2007, at 12:40 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> On 4/25/07, David Blevins <> wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>> > On 24/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to
>>> >> > enterprise application and remoting services, for  
>>> distribution at
>>> >> > no charge to the public.
>>> >>
>>> >> A bit generic for a project that is intended to managing an
>>> >> implementation
>>> >> of a well-defined specification?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I think it's accurate - it doesn't implement the entire EJB spec
>>> > (using other components such as OpenJPA to do so), and it would  
>>> be in
>>> > scope to do additional, non-EJB things that make it better at the
>>> > purpose stated here.
>>> We could use "Scalable, transactional, and multi-user secure
>>> architecture for the development and deployment of component-based
>>> business applications", but that'd be plagiarism as that's a
>>> minimally paraphrased version the definition of EJB in the JSR.
>>> Generally, I think it's good to use words that describe EJB then the
>>> words Enterprise JavaBeans specifically.  Primarily because I think
>>> it's good to be able to innovate in the space and not limit  
>>> ourselves
>>> to the ideas approved by the EJB JSR Expert Group.
>> i see your point but the original language isn't great: it's all a
>> little wholly. for example, "remoting services" could be read as
>> service provision.
>> perhaps something more like: "creation and maintenance of
>> transactional application containers capable of connection by remote
>> clients"...?
> That could work.  The definition of ejb spells out "Scalable,  
> transactional, and multi-user secure" which is summed up by the  
> word 'enterprise'.  So maybe something like "creation and  
> maintenance of enterprise application containers and object  
> distribution".  Maybe expand that last part to "object distribution  
> servers", kind of awkward but uses Container and Server which are  
> the primary two words we use to describe our architecture (i.e. the  
> openejb container/server contract).  Or one last mutation could be  
> to use "services" instead of "server" which might be less awkward,  
> giving us "object distribution services".
> Preferences, thoughts?

Ok, going with "object distribution services" as I think that  
describes a less singular approach to supporting distributed  
objects.  At current date we support invocations over our custom  
protocol, CORBA, HTTP, JMS, JAX-RPC, JAX-WS, even telnet.  We have a  
container/server contract and a server implementation that allows for  
numberous ServerService (i.e. protocols) to be plugged in and  
standardly configured in an xinet.d style config.  Adding a new  
protocol is literally an act of dropping in a jar and rebooting.  And  
I'm not sure what is meant by "service provisioning", but we do have  
the capability for you to deploy a client app in advance and then  
walk up to the server later with an empty client and sort of say "I  
want to be client 'foo'" and your empty client will download all the  
previously deployed environment for client "foo" (i.e. security info,  
naming entries, ejb references, jms queue/topic references, etc.).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message