David, This certainly sounds like a good direction for the future of OpenEJB.
~mark David Blevins wrote: >This message goes out to all the users and developers and is a direct >request for comments. Please give us direction. > >STATUS > >So here is where we are it in the project. > > - We have the 1.0 code which is pretty much the same as 0.9.2 with > the addition of a Web Administration Console, EJB 2.0 Local > Interface support, and an addition form of OpenEJB/Tomcat > integration scoped at just the webapp level. > > - We have the 2.0 code which is pretty much tied to Geronimo and has > none of the features that existing OpenEJB users have come to > expect: easy unit testing of ejbs; any form of tomcat integration; > easy config files; tools to validate ejbs. It does have ejb 2.1 > functionality (webserivces, cmp2, mdbs). > >I've been very hesitant to release anything from the OpenEJB 2.0 tree >as it is just going to work in the same way that OpenEJB 1 (0.9.2) >does. The trick is also that all the resources on the project have >focused solely on implementing 2.1 so we never seem to get to 1.0 either. > >GOALS > >I think top priority is getting OpenEJB back in the hands of OpenEJB >users. At this point I don't think this means giving you all a 1.0, >you deserve the EJB 2.1 functionality you were promised and the great >things you like about 0.9.2. Further, unless we get a jump on >starting an EJB 3 implementation focused on existing OpenEJB users, >we'll be in the same position we were in on the EJB 2.1 code. > >DIRECTION > > Here is where we need your feedback. This project exists for you > guys, so we need to here from as many people as possible. The > more the better. > >What if we just put out the 1.0 "as is" did minor bug fixes on it, but >nothing major in terms of features. Admitted the 2.0 code is pretty >much Geronimo's and just left it alone for the most part. And... > >we start on OpenEJB 3 by taking the 1.0 (pretty much the same as >0.9.2), merging in parts of the 2.0 code, and (here is the important >part) ensuring that the entire time the code we write is code you can >use! We will never drop a feature, even temporarily. This is also >where we would develop EJB 3 compliance. We will start from code that >users are now using and always keep, maintain, and improve those >features as we add new features. Releasing early and often. > >How does that sound? > >Here is how I am imagining we could do that technically: > > 1. Take the OpenEJB 1.0 code and kill all the ugly static code and > make it IoC with the gbean.org kernel. The gbean kernel is an > IoC kernel compatible with both Spring and Geronimo. So people > using OpenEJB could leverage (and write) both Spring components > and Geronimo components. See http://gbean.org > > This would entail no change to OpenEJB as you know it, but would > allow you to start experimenting with Spring on apps already > working with OpenEJB 0.9.2. > > 2. As the gbean.org stuff is both Spring and Geronimo compatible, > it provides a great way for us to take the Geronimo-compatible > EJB containers and deployers in OpenEJB 2 and start hammering > them out and releasing them to you. > > 3. All EJB 3 work would be done as components and made available to > you in various forms of stability as things go along, meanwhile > that won't slow down the entire OpenEJB 3 set of code. > >The effect of all this is that you get a fixed-up, far more >extensible, version of the code you are already using delivered to you >right away. We can basically start releasing 1.0 as 3.0 now and keep >releasing as we execute on step 1. As step 1 gets further along, we >can start in on step 2, and still keep releasing. At any point after >step 1, we can open things up for people to come in and work on EJB 3. > >Again, the overall goal is to start with code you are using now and >ensure that when we take a step forward, we aren't leaving you behind >by removing things you depend on (tomcat integration, testability, >embeddibility, ease of use, etc). > >FEEDBACK > >So here is where we need as many people as possible to shout out and >say "yes" or "no" or anything else you want to add. > > > > >>>>> Is this where you want the project to go? <<<< >>>>> >>>>> > >Feedback from you is critical. > > >Best regards, >David Blevins > > > >
