On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Bernd Fondermann >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 22:11, 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 >>> >>> Maybe it's ok to rephrase that a little bit, to highlight an important >>> difference to phoenix: The spring-deployment _supports_ Avalon-based >>> components, and thus it depends on Avalon interfaces. You can (at >>> least that was my intention) deploy any other non-Avalon-based bean >>> besides our Avalon-based components. >> >> cool :-) >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> this, and deploy new James components which are not tied to Avalon, >>> and get MBeans running again under modern JDKs, and make it easier to >>> integrate with anything already running in Spring, and to integrate >>> James into Spring-supporting containers, like Geronimo, Tomcat, Felix. >> >> cool >> >> how freely can avalon and spring components be mixed? > > As much as you want. Components declared in assembly.xml are created as > spring beans using their block name. > > You can add more non avalon blocks in the spring-beans.xml and you can > override assembly blocks with non avalon beans. > > The only thing you have to care about is the Interfaces. The beans you > create for services have to implement the right interfaces. > > The "serviceManager" bean defined in spring-beans.xml has the ability to > define a "replacements" map. In our case only the FileSystem service is > replaced with org.apache.james.container.spring.adaptor.FileSystemBridge. > > The spring-deployment also supports configuration interceptors to allow for > changes of what is read from the phoenix config.xml.
does the existing pheonix deployment have any advantages over the spring one? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
