Spring also seems to be very bloated out of the box. There is a lot of stuff there that we just don't need or want.
Regards, *================================* | Scott T Weaver | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Apache Jetspeed Portal Project | | Apache Pluto Portlet Container | *================================* > -----Original Message----- > From: David Le Strat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 9:46 AM > To: Jetspeed Developers List > Subject: Re: [J2] Service Framework Proposal > > Glenn, > > This is the kind of debate we should be having. > Spring actually falls into the AOP/IoC realm though > Spring is actually much bigger than that as it > provides an MVC framework and so on. > > If we stick to IoC/AOP, whichever framework is being > used, I believe that IoC 2 or 3 are the best choices > as you don't need a ServiceManager or JNDI to fetch > the dependencies from. > > Spring also supports AOP and even has its own AOP > implementation. > > On the drawbacks side, using Spring you have to > provide quite a bit of component metadata (which I > don't think is really a big deal, but some people may > think so) and we would have to implement JMX support. > > Another drawback of Spring seems to be the component > configuration itself. It does not seem possible to > allow deploying self contained components / self > configurable components. Configuration seems to be > tight to the web application configuration (through > the applicationContext.xml). So you would not be able > to package your application services independently of > the application. Please correct me if I missed > something here. > > I have not implemented a service using Spring per say. > If we could work around the configuration issue and > JMX, Spring could actually be a good fit for Jetspeed. > Any comments from others? > > Just my 2 cents. > > David. > > --- "Glenn R. Golden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David, and Jetspeed all - > > > > Thanks for the proposal. We are also evaluating > > component frameworks > > for our CHEF project, which has been based on > > Jetspeed 1 and the > > Jetspeed / Turbine service model, which seems a type > > 1 IoC like Avalon. > > > > I am currently very interested in Spring's component > > framework, which > > can handle type 2 or 3 IoC. You mention it in your > > analysis, but did > > not end up recommending using it. Any specific > > comments of the merits > > or problems of Spring, in general, and for Jetspeed? > > > > Thanks. > > > > - Glenn > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 > http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
