james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric MacAdie <e...@MacAdie.net>
Subject Re: Not Mine
Date Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:57:43 GMT
If I understand this thread correctly, you want to replace Avalon with a 
custom framework. I think that this is not a good idea. Moving from an 
obsolete framework to a custom framework seems like jumping out of the 
frying pan and into the fire. I think it would be better to use 
something that has traction in the larger Java community, like Guice or 
Spring.

Eric MacAdie
Pronounced: muh-KAY-dee

Simon Funnell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> By the way, its only 'my' framework by virtue of the fact there is no 
> 'our' to refer to. I could probably refer to it as 'the' framework 
> with you being able to infer what I am referring to from experience, 
> but its actually called 'Platformed' and I intend to make it open 
> source. Also, after some research and reflection, I actually think its 
> much more suitable (it was designed for this purpose). There is no 
> escaping some of the differences in approach however. I am quite 
> willing to invest some time implementing some things which you can 
> take a look at, it really wouldn't take to long to modify some 
> existing code. Avalon defines interfaces such as Loggable(?) but there 
> is no equivalent concept with what I am doing because all things are 
> inherently loggable, components do have to be built in a way that 
> enables loggability (and lots of other things) though. It basically 
> means breaking down some of the existing code into smaller chunks that 
> can pieced together. These smaller chunks could be recomposed into an 
> alternative implementation of existing classes and I could also use 
> these smaller chunks in a different arrangement. As I say, I could 
> implement an example which would allow people to make an evaluation 
> about any sort of decision or what not.
>
> I think you might actually like it, it was written a while ago and its 
> only by looking at it closely again that I remembered how much work I 
> put into it. My last email didn't accurately reflect the whole 
> architecture, the micro virtual machines I have touched on are 
> extensible through 'operations'. Current James classes have methods 
> such as initialize, service, destroy etc, I would have to replace 
> these methods with actual classes (which implement an interface called 
> Operation). Operations are stateless instances that implement 
> functionality, micro virtual machines provide the operations with a 
> context upon which to operate. Different micro virtual machines can 
> have contexts like application/session etc depending on what's 
> required. If you wanted to log the state of any given machine, at any 
> stage, you just plug in a logging operation at the necessary place. 
> This can be done dynamically, like for example an individual client 
> matching some criteria. The smaller things are, the more reusable they 
> are. I could very easily create an adapter that takes existing 
> mailet/matchers and transforms them into Operations for  micro virtual 
> machines processing the spool.
>
> I've probably said too much/too little so I wont post again until I 
> get some feed back, or have something working, which ever comes first. 
> I am still interested in producing some documentation as well, 
> suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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