Martin Cooper wrote:
"Jun Yang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts paper, we have a number of
Comparison to Other Work boxes for the purpose of comparing it with
other (unamed) frameworks and pointing out the unique features of
Cornerstone. We attempted at a comprehensive comparison with Hivemind,
Spring and Pico Container and found it too difficult because it requires
much more than superficial knowledge of those frameworks. It will be a
great thing if experts of those frameworks can contribute their views.
I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is sufficiently
general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind, Spring and
PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts paper and
presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of Jetspeed?
Now that Cornerstone is part of the Jetspeed CVS repo, what is the thinking
on its development going forward? I'm curious about whether it will be
integrated into Jetspeed to the point where it would not be useful as a
standalone component, or if the goal is to keep it (semi-)independent. While
I understand that mass customisation is clearly a factor in portal-land,
that's not the only space to which it applies, and I can see a use for such
a framework in non-portal applications as well.
In general, I guess I'd just like to better understand the relationship
between Jetspeed and Cornerstone. (I'm not currently a Jetspeed user, but
lurk on this list because of my interest in Pluto and its relationship with
Jetspeed 2 - and now, possibly, Cornerstone. ;)
Yes, you are right on the target. I am sure that Jun would think of the
same way that J2-Cornerstone can better serve developer community by
decoupling it in some form similar to Commons-chain and Struts-chain.
BaTien
DBGROUPS
--
Martin Cooper
Thanks!
Jun
BaTien Duong wrote:
This is exciting. A technical comparision with other opensource
frameworks such as Hivemind and Pico container by the author(s) of
Jetspeed Cornerstone may be helpfull. Will the author(s) care to give
a subjective rating on the maturity of different frameworks?
I will find some time to look at the source codes.
BaTien
DBGROUPS
Jun Yang wrote:
Here are links to the Cornerstone docs. Warning: they may not be
light reading material and nevertheless are food for thought.
Jetspeed Cornerstone Concepts
http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/cornerstone-concepts.pdf
Jetspeed Cornerstone Presentation
http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.pdf
(PDF)
http://www.bluesunrise.com/jetspeed-docs/CornerstoneFramework2.ppt
(PowerPoint)
Any comments and questions are welcome. Another document "Jetspeed
Cornerstone Sample Code" will follow soon with runnable demo package.
Jun
David Sean Taylor wrote:
Im starting a little informal thread discussing Service and
Component Frameworks.
Currently we are using Fulcrum in Jetspeed-2.
While I do like Fulcrum and it has been very useful for us, there
are now more advanced service frameworks available.
All services in J2 are implemented as Common Portlet Services. The
goal of CPS was to act as a layer so that we could more easily swap
out Fulcrum in the future. I think that time has come and we need to
start reviewing the other frameworks and make a decision.
The frameworks we have considering are:
1. Hivemind
2. Pico Container
3. Jetspeed Cornerstone (not to be confused with Avalon Cornerstone)
4. Avalon
I really like what I've seen in Hivemind, however the current
licensing issues concern me.
I also think that Cornerstone, contributed by the Cisco team to
Jetspeed, is very powerful.
Are there other service frameworks we should be considering?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
