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: [jamesng] Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:30:17 GMT
Hi Alexander,

it is none of my business but it means that you have to migrate the 
cornerstone and excalibur-datasource stuff as well?! I also assume that 
you are using a IOC container such as Hivemind or Pico/Nano Container?!

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl

Siegfried Goeschl

Alexander Zhukov wrote:

> 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
>
>


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


Mime
View raw message