On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> 1. spring-deployment is a (cool) spring based avalon container >> 2. pheonix-deployment is an avalon container >> 3. both depend on components coupled to intrusive avalon interfaces >> 4. the intrusive nature of avalon is bad for the code base >> >> this means that it's not going to be possible to factor out non-avalon >> components within the current layer structure. either >> spring-deployment needs to depend on pheonix-deployment or a new layer >> is going to be needed the functions and the avalon-containers. >> >> - robert > > This is a perfect summary of my previous concerns :-) > To be more precise spring-deployment is a spring based avalon container > compatible with phoenix configuration (config.xml) and descriptors (xinfo) > so, there is something more than avalon in the coupling. > > I guess the ideas was to have spring as an avalon container so we could move > some component out of avalon step by step.
makes sense > ATM I'd probably choose the new layer type (-package). > ---- > sar-deployment > spring-avalon-package > phoenix-package is spring deployed through a SAR? > BTW you are the ant build expert here, so do it as you feel it's better. In > m2 we're using named dependencies so both solutions works the same. it's not an ant limitation but a self-imposed rule of the layering game IMHO james server is so complex from a coupling perspective that layering needs to be imposed to give an understandable structure. the rules of the layering may be expected to evolve with time. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
