Hi Stephen, Stephen Haberman wrote:
plexus is not an "implementation of Avalon Framework", nor is any of the containers hosted @ avalon. I also don't think it smart to get into any kind of "pissing contest" over technically superior container implementations. Fact of the matter is, there is no "container spec" and hence no "container impl", just an implementation of a somewhat too vaguely described concept.On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:51:03AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 11:37, Gonzalo Diethelm wrote:I think Fortress is the right choice at this point, given the (proposed) roadmap for Avalon: ECM -> Fortress -> Merlin -> SuperContainerI don't believe so. I have been working on Plexus with Turbine in mind for quite some time. Plexus has more tests, a Maven plugin to assist in component development, runtime deployment and testing. Plexus also has services in place for a clean, component oriented version of Turbine as an application development tool.My initial reaction is that I'd like to see Turbine stay away from Plexus. Even if it a technically superior implementation of the Avalon Framework,
:D I'm a reuse freak, and multiple containers with the same use case sounds like lack of container reuse to me. But more important is the component/app reuse. When that is possible across different containers, fragementation is nearly a non-issue. Of course, no-one's ever been able to do a portable architecture before (look at ejb!), so there's doubts...I think we should stick with the Avalon community on this one as they seem to be moving towards the previously mentioned SuperContainer for all of the right reasons (e.g. keeping a solid user base and cutting down on fragmentation).
I think if the code in plexus cvs is donated to the ASF, parts of it should go into avalon, and parts into turbine (after going through incubator).To me, it's comparable to the Torque/OJB situation. Why should Torque keep maintaining all of its persistence code when OJB is already devoted to it? Why should the Turbine/Fulcrum community devote to maintaining our own (assuming Jason donates it) container when Avalon is already devoted to it?
Plexus is almost specifically built for the turbine use case. Hence that use case is well-addressed. That's basically it.Though if Jason could give a few of examples of why Plexus is undoubtedly the right container for the Turbine/Fulcrum community over Avalon's Fortress/Merlin/SuperContainer roadmap, I could concede that perhaps it's the right way to go (e.g. I vaguely remember Jason mentioning something about dynamic loading...not quite sure).
me too. But I can definately understand the business motivation behind developing plexus seperately with a small group of people with a focussed goal.I've been really hyped about the Plexus container for a long time now, but after lurking on avalon-dev for awhile, I've come to agree with their SuperContainer approach and would rather see the work that is being done on Plexus be funneled into Avalon's Fortress/Merlin/SuperContainer effort.
(I'm not Jason, but...)Though maybe Plexus is the right way to go for now until the SuperContainer is released... Jason, can you see Plexus (or the features that you/Zenplex require of Plexus) being implemented in Avalon's Fortress/Merlin/SuperContainer efforts in either the short or long term?
long term -- yes. If plexus has important new features we'll want them in "SuperContainer" as well. Short term -- no. Avalon's got lots of stuff to do and to sort out.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
