Yes, very good proposal. Just curious - why wasn't OSGI considered as a possible service framework?
Tim. > We thank David Le Strat for doing a great job on the service framework > proposal. > > Here is what we'd like to suggest to add to the proposal: > > 1. Cornerstone JMX > > picoextras/jmx supports registering pico components as JMX components in > a special JMX-aware pico container directly with an MBean Server. > Cornerstone JMX is designed for a different purpose: JMX-enable any > object with no JMX knowledge. When a component is configured to be > JMX-enabled, all its states are managed by a standard JMX adapter (The > name "adapter" maybe misleading to someone unfamiliar with JMX. It's > basically a tool that allows you to manage JMX components). A developer > doesn't need to know anything about JMX to make his/her components > manageable by JMX. We generate MBeans dynamically. > > We can make Cornerstone JMX a self-contained package to be used in > Jetspeed so that all services are JMX-enabled with ease without a > special pico container. > > 2. Cornerstone Customization > > The forte of the Cornerstone Framework is its ability to support > customizations in many dimensions (component, relationship, flow and > preservation over upgrades). Right now it supports type 2 IoC. But we > can change it slightly to support both type 2 and type 3 (same as pico) > while maintaining the same configuration format. We can make the > implementation manager part of Cornerstone a self-contained package as > an approach to wiring pico components based on configuration to give > pico components the following capabilities: > > - Configuration-based (properties files or database) wiring. > - Finer-grain configuration than that picoextras/script's XML solution > allows (per component configuration file vs. one file per container), > which is important in supporting the next 2 points. > - Multiple "planes" of configuration with user defined order of override. > - Preservation of customization over upgrades. > > For service orchestration, we are in the process of settling on the > optimal among several solutions. > > Thanks! > > Jun and Emad > > David Le Strat wrote: > >>All, >> >>We had quite a few threads on the service framework >>topic, IRC sessions regarding Cornerstone. In order >>for J2 to shine, the Jetspeed developers community >>needs to come to a consensus and a decision around a >>service framework for Jetspeed. >> >>I have prepared a document (zip file enclosed) that >>tries to articulate what J2 needs from a service >>framework and proposes a direction. That should help >>provide a basis for a discussion that hopefully will >>lead to a decision / vote on the best alternative for >>the future of Jetspeed. >> >>Regards, >> >>David Le Strat. >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
