On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 10:48, Leo Simons wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Stephen Haberman wrote: > > 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 -> SuperContainer > >> > >>I 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, > > 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.
Never claimed it was 'superior'. It will certainly be different but I never attached the 'superior' moniker to it an any point in time. > > 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). > > :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... Well, if I could build anything or get it to work I might have used one of your containers to start. You are aware of my attempts to get Fortress working. I find Fortress complicated and wasn't easy to setup and I had to nag Peter Royal for a week straight to get it to work. Sorry, but no thanks. > > 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? > > 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). If it goes anywhere it will back in Turbine, if anyone in Turbine wants it. Otherwise I'm happy where it is. > > 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). > > Plexus is almost specifically built for the turbine use case. Hence that > use case is well-addressed. That's basically it. No, that's not basically it. My primary use case was not the Turbine use case. I'm assembling a runtime similiar to Phoenix, but the way Turbine currently works is another important one I wanted to solve. Please don't make assertion for which you have little or no supporting evidence. It's not fair and misleading. > > 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. > > me too. But I can definately understand the business motivation behind > developing plexus seperately with a small group of people with a > focussed goal. How long has Avalon been working to release something? There was certainly a business motivation because you can't get squat to build without a _great_ deal of difficulty, hardly any of the examples worked and everyone is busy. Not just a business need, but any need. There is a small group of people working on Plexus but how many do you have working on things like Fortress and Merlin? To my eyes from the commit messages it looks to me like Plexus has as many, if not more, people working on it than Fortress or Merlin. > > 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? > > (I'm not Jason, but...) > > 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]> -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
