james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Siegfried Goeschl <siegfried.goes...@it20one.at>
Subject Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
Date Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:01:06 GMT
Hi Aron,

I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering 
badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James 
Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an 
Avalon-free JamesNG 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut 
feeling is that it won't be an easy task.

As a casual  James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few ways to go

*) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
*) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
*) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of 
there choice for the migration process
*) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big Bang

I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is 
that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) -  but we have to keep the 
James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress and 
Fulcrum YAAFI.


Siegfried Goeschl

 Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that

J Aaron Farr wrote:

>Thanks for the clarifications.  I'm very interested in seeing what
>Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.
>>I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of minutes.
>>It should be simple to make simple things.
>IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
>documentation and we can definitely make it more simple.  The goal of
>Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.
>So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
>component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message