Ok, I think I have to answer tho the entire fusion thing, I think the entire discussion here and in the other thread is going into an entirely wrong direction.
First of all I am not the implementor of fusion, I just added a generic jpa adaptor and I am sort of the first user of it writing an app to test the adapter. But, yes there is an overlap between Seam and fusion, but, and this is a big but, fusion is not and never will be a competing framework to Seam, it cannot and it does not want to be. First fusion is not located in the EJB3 stack, secondly, it does not want to cover the entire application cycle like Seam does. Seam is an excellent framework and if you need something along these lines, please use Seam. Fusion is more or less refactored out of an existing tomahawk codebase into something more generic. The conversation part has been refactored out from existing tomahawk sandbox taglib components (yes there was a conversation taglib) into the Spring 2.0 domain, where such a solution was heavily missing until recently. It does not try to cover the ground of Seam, and not the ground of Seam 1.2 which also has Spring connectors. It just currently acts as a scope provider which also has a generic persistencecontext controlling mechanism, for Spring 2.0 and hence is rather framework agnostic . So what is there is a basic Spring 2.0 scope which can be used by others to build upon. There is no configuration controlling system in fusion, and never will be others should dock theirs onto it if needed (Shale Dialog for instance instantly comes to mind). The end goal probably will be to have a foundation layer for JSR 299 in the future. The framework funnily is very platform agnostic there are not too many bindings into JDK5 and the funny thing is that the entire binding into the JSF realm is rather thin and could be replaced easily into other frameworks. While currently living in the JSF realm I do not see to many problems to have this layer being moved into other frameworks. Anyway, comparing fusion to Seam is like comparing bricks for building something and having the tools to build it to a full house where you can move in. There is some overlap but the entire direction is different. And the last thing we want is bad blood between the two projects, there are simply not too many goals in common, but there is obviously some overlap. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4026382#4026382 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4026382 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
