On Thu, 2 May 2002 22:13, Pete Carapetyan wrote: > There is only one person that gains from code that isn't componentized, > and that is the author. Ego drives open source, and pride is it's > currency. This is how it should be, but for everyone else, PITA.
true. However the more successful projects do a single thing well while the "everything + kitchen sink" projects rarely make it big. If they do it is after several years of development. > My 2c: You guys don't know how cool it is what you got. If it ever hit > you what the possibilities were, and all Apache projects were > componentized as a first step, you would be overwhelmed with the > potential, and so would the rest of Apache. Why isn't Struts Avalonized? > etc. Duplication? It would be hard NOT to resolve the duplication > problems if Apache was Avalonized, because when you got to duplicate > functionality, there would be this elephant in the living room that had > to be dealt with before moving on. So MUCH duplication. Hell, it's not > duplication, it's out and out competition. My thing is better than your > thing. Some of the duplication exists due to ignorance, some due to competition and some because external projects were brought in that > If only I could figure out whether the JBOSS approach of JMX and hot > pluggability, or the Avalon approach was the better of the two. Or is > this another case of un-necessary confusion on my part? If so, there > seems to be a lot of that going around. I think both approaches are useful but at different granularities. JMX is primarily aimed at management side of things however JBoss uses it as a sorta service kernel aswell. I kinda like that approach for large grain services but I still happen to think that Avalons better for fine-grain components. ie I would use Avalon to build a mail server but I would use JMX to turn that mail server on/off or link it to a webserver or whatever. -- Cheers, Peter Donald -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
