I would agree with Eric I fulcrum should stay container independent as much as possible. Anite have recently ported fulcrum security to Hivemind. This is reasonably easy to do and it would be nice if over time more components became everything independent
All we had to do for Hivemind was write the module descriptors, remove Avalon Base classes and make the objects with logic closer to POJO's.
BTW: Eric I will shortly send you the hivemind version as promised.
Ben
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ben Gidley tel: 01753 804000
Senior Technical Architect ddi:01753 804108
Anite fax: 01753 804123
353 Buckingham Avenue mobile: 07788 754303
Slough web: http://www.anite.com/publicsector
Berkshire personal: http://www.gidley.co.uk
SL1 4PF email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 May 2005 19:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Turbine Developers List; Excalibur Developers List; Turbine Users List
Subject: Re: YAAFI/Fortress
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]
Scanned for viruses by MessageLabs
Scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed. This email is intended for the named recipient only, and may contain confidential information and proprietary material. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited.
