I would like to see a migration to Fortess occur at some time as well. However, I think the lesson that the Turbine/Fulcrum land can take is that depending on any one container is bad. Containers seem to come and go with amazing regularity, and we shouldn't depend on any of them.
I am leaning towards any real code should be a POJO, with the appropriate interface layer for a specific container. I like YAAFI because it works. I don't know that I would write an application on it (although Siegfried would!), but I like that it fires up, runs the unit tests, and then quits. I wish we did have a unit testing strategy where we could test against ECM, YAAFI, and Fortress. I think it boils down to someone stepping up and doing the work. It doesn't sound like anyone has any real objection to supporting Fortress. And moving from ECM + Yaafi to Fortress + Yaafi sounds like a good approach. Especially with Fortress actually having a 1.1 release available. Eric On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:22:05 +0200, Siegfried Goeschl wrote > Hi Peter, > > my comments are below > > Peter Courcoux wrote: > > > Siegfried, > > > > I had a quick look at YAAFI and perused the excalibur lists over the > > weekend. > > > > It looks like Fortress is still being actively developed, is used > > quite extensively and fits the style of component management required > > by turbine ( ie not wiring comoponents together but making them > > available in a similar manner to ECM). > > Same for YAAFI ... > > > I also note that Fortress has cyclic dependency checking, the lack of > > which in ECM, was a worry to me in a recent project where I had a > > number of junior developers writing and using ECM managed components. > > This is a design problem and not a container problem ... :-) .... > and YAAFI is actually unable to run services with cyclic dependencies. > > > > > It doesn't look to me like YAAFI has cyclic dependency checking and I > > think it might be worth looking at how we could use Fortress and what > > it would take to convert the fulcrum services to be usable in > > Fortress. It is more work but I'm thinking that biting the bullet now > > would have many advantages in the future. > > We already took a few bullets - the Turbine services were converted > to ECM and then to Merlin thereby effectively stalling the Fulcrum > project. I don't have a problem migrating the existing codebase to > use Fortress but this involves the following steps > > 1) changing the access to the Avalon context for all services - not > a big deal and YAAFI supports setting up the correct Avalon context > based on the "componentFlavour" 2) writing role configuration files > but I found nowhere a spec saying how to write such a file for > Fortress - and I need to write a parser for it 3) sorting out the > dependencies and adding them to Fulcrum/Turbine - Fortress requires > around 20 JARs whereas YAAFI is happy with just two of them. > > > > > What do you think? > > +) making Fulcrum components compatible to Fortress is a good idea > +) using Fortress as default Avalon container is currently not on my > list - but again this is my strictly personal opinion. > > Cheers, > > Siegfried Goeschl > > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenSource Connections (http://www.opensourceconnections.com) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
