Il giorno 13/ott/04, alle 23:23, Vadim Gritsenko ha scritto:
* Why new type of container is needed; (I suppose: because some things are broken) * What's broken in ECM;
Quoting Stefano:
"I've been helping Pier write a block-like container for his employer and
found out that no matter how hard we try, the Avalon interfaces cannot
allow to implement Cocoon Blocks the way we designed them."
<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108004833707209&w=2>
* Why it can't be fixed in Fortress;
It might be fixed, maybe. My impression, however, is that Avalon with Fortress/Merlin/Metro/Magic/Excalibur/Kingarthur/Lancelot/Guinevere/ Whatever is quickly fading into irrelevance. I was subscribed to the Excalibur mailing lists until a couple of days ago. There was almost nothing there besides talk about hot to fix the problems with Gump. I unsubscribed from Avalon even earlier.
I need a framework which provides today lots of prepackaged modules helping with persistence, transactions, messaging, management (in the JMX sense). In two words: enterprise services. I don't see anything better than Spring it this respect.
[I just realized I promised earlier not to fall into a container-religion-war type of argument, and I didn't mantain the promise, but since you asked a direct question...]
* Why Avalon compatibility can't be achived with new container (so that you need second one in parallel).
May be. I just thought it might have been easier that way. No compatibility layer to write. if you have legacy components just run them in the legacy container, which is not much more than ECM, and we already have that. This is however an implementation decision and it is IMHO better to start doing it one way or the other and see which one is better. I'm all for agile, test-driven development, so what I would do is write some tests, implement the simplest thing that might possibly work and refactor.
-- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
