On Mar 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Ming Qin wrote: > Geronimo Developers: > > I am seeking a java microkernel-based implementation as foundation for > proprietary software product which will have a long life cycle crossing 10 > years or even more. Geronimo microkernel (without OSGI ) seems very > intuitive to me with its features IOC , GBean , Module and Assembly.
Thanks. > > After downloading source code 3.o-M1, 2.2.1 and reading David Jencks’ > slides-“Geronimo 3 JavaEE6 OSGI”. I would like to submit three questions > about Geronimo kernel features. > > 1. If I don’t want all OSGI enhancements in Geronimo 3, and just like > to be stick with Geronimo 2.x kernel, which branch or tag should I work with > in order to get most updated and completed maturity on advanced features of > Module and Assembly? For your purposes, I'd recommend 2.2.x. Though 2.1.x could be used, also. To evaluate 3.0, I'd recommend our branches/3.0-M2 branch (or trunk). Note that we're still anticipating some significant changes to 3.0 (for instance, GBeans are likely to go away...). > 2. Is there any efforts being poured towards Geronimo 2.x by Geronimo > community in the sense of bug fixing, plug-in adding, technical supporting > and releasing new branch of Geronimo 2.x? Yes. We're still seeing bug fixes to 2.1.x and 2.2.x. And I expect that we'll see additional 2.1.x and/or 2.2.x releases. If there is sufficient interest/demand, a 2.3 release could be developed (although I don't recall that anyone's expressed interest in this, so far). If you and/or others wanted to participate in the community to achieve this, I doubt that there would be any objections. > 3. Is Geronimo 3.0 preserving 2.x backward compatibility? No. Not at a kernel/gbean level. "Applications" should be compatible, but may require migration of deployment plans. --kevan
