[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: WANTED: Input from administrators & developers
by dhartford
anonymous wrote : I am not sure to get this right, the "CMS server" is already quite independent (it is JackRabbit) with a homebrew Hibernate storage.
| This could be interesting to discuss over the phone during a conf call. I am not even sure you and jewhit are talking about the exact same thing. Please email me if you are interested by a call, same for jewhit.
jewhit and I may have different ideas/goals, not sure. Nonetheless, Jackrabbit was the path I was going down anyway -- and as of yesterday Jukka released a 1.1-rc1 with a compatible JCA adaptor making this a lot easier.
As for independent, I guess I always see portal and the repo(jackrabbit) installed together, and it may be nice to have them seperate with a 'combo' install for those that do want them installed from one package.
One 'Jboss Repo' package for Jackrabbit JCA, JCR support, WebDAV support, and the jboss hibernate wrapper (Shotoku I assume), possibly with their own admin tools (i.e. repo security/access, storage sizing, storage locations on local disk, iSCSI, SAN, etc, backup utilities, more). From the Provisioning side, I think the seperation of the portal and the repo would help out a lot, as well as add another service layer available to developers related to file-based/non-relationalDB storage.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3972939#3972939
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3972939
19 years, 6 months
[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Action Processing Pipelines, updated Trailblazer etc...
by tfennelly
"kurt.stam(a)jboss.com" wrote : Yes the banks are using XStream, they are standalone bank applications. Why is the loanbroker now using XStream? We should be using our own marshalling implementation, why was this changed?
I'm afraid I can't answer that one Kurt!! I just checked ProcessCreditResponse.java in the beta1 release and I can see now how this was able to work before. See in the sendJMSToBank method - it registers an alias such that org.jboss.soa.esb.samples.loanbroker.banks.BanksQuoteRequest gets mapped to org.jboss.soa.esb.samples.loanbroker.banks.BankQuoteRequest. Look really hard and you'll spot the difference. ObjectToXStream just uses the class name of the object passed in.
So, we can either remove XStream from one end or the other, or leave things as they are. There's no point going back to the beta1 way of doing things because that's no less confusing than it is now.
I'd go for removing XStream from the Bank code because ObjectToXStream is an OK demo of how to write reusable action processors. The demo isn't really about how to write banking systems using XStream.
"kurt.stam(a)jboss.com" wrote :
| The BankQuoteRequest should not be the same class. These are independent systems and this will make the demo code confusing I think.
+1
Sounds like something to be added to JIRA :-)
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3972925#3972925
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3972925
19 years, 6 months