On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 09:27, Paul Hammant wrote: > This is an enabler, not migration. We're facilitating alternate > deployment capabilities, not closing off current ones.
This makes so much sense for projects like Eve which attempt to enable integration with everything under the sun. As you know we have these POJO's and separate wrappers for Avalon and eventually other IoC frameworks. This will even enable us to integrate into Geronimo perhaps with GBean wrappers but I was told I may not need them since the POJO's might be usable directly. > As it would happen, I think the starting point is Cornerstone rather > than James. Again as an enabler. Oh good thing you mentioned this. Cornerstone is the missing link for me in the POJO'ification process. Obviously I depend on it and use it with Avalon deployment. However it would be nice to just have POJO versions of the Cornerstone components. This way they're as common as using jakarta-commons classes without being tied to any component framework. Cornerstone I think would be used much more readily if this were the case. However I do have this one question which I should know but just in case perhaps someone can clarify it. Aren't the classes within the excalibur libraries used to build the Cornerstone components the POJO's we're looking for? Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Excalibur Project -- URL: http://excalibur.apache.org/
