james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Zhukov <zhu...@ukrpost.net>
Subject [jamesng] Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
Date Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:13:57 GMT
Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> 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.
I am currently working on removing avalon dependence from current v2x 
source of james and making james a set of POJOs
And I guess by the end of the following week it will be ready to be 
testable by other developers
Yes you are right the task of throwing out avalon is not easy but its 
worth the trouble.
It took me about two weeks already - I have pop3 and smtp servers 
running, but not clean enough to show others.

> 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 vote for the last one
+ reuse components already written by making them POJOs

> 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.
> Cheers,
> 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.
>> Exactly.
>> 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?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message