[jboss-dev-forums] [Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: New tree state model

[alesj]

"jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | Increasing the complexity of the MC state model to support something that only EJB3 needs, that might not even be the right way to solve their problem needs to be justified.  
  | 
Justified by who or what?
And how do you know that might not be the right way to do it?
They are moving more and more to MC.
Why should they invent a new way to handle their lifecycle
when MC could/should do this.

I'm not saying it needs to be done now.
And nothing of what I wrote implied it will be.

"jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | Great, but before this is done, we need to first ask should it be done? 
  | 
Afaik MC has it's own roadmap, steered by the one's who are actively involved / contribute.

"jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | Does the overall AS architecture make sense this way?
  | 
AS has nothing to do here.
This is transparent to 99,9% of MC use cases.
Apart from EJB3 there is no project/component that I know
that is outside of MC umbrella and uses MC/Kernel spi directly.

"jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | How does this make the MC better for users? 
  | 
More generic state model.
This was one of the ideas from the first day I joined the project back in 2006.
It was based on my real use case from my previous work.

"jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | How does this make the AS better for users?
  | 
Again, no relation, it should be completely transparent.
And it depends which users you're refering to here.
Plain app developer doesn't see the diff from 4.2.x and 5.x wrt to kernel.

If you mean components inside AS, then EJB3 is a clear example.
We would only have a single lifecycle state model, 
hence the possible contributors wouldn't have learn any other hacks.

"jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | "alesj" wrote : 
  |   | Your two post are just steering this discussion off the target.
  |   | I would much rather see you added something useful on how
  |   | we should actually impl this new tree model,
  |   | then jumping on the thread when I simply mention EJB.
  |   | This is just not the way how MC dev forum should work. ;-)
  |   | 
  | This is exactly the way this forum should work. 
  | 
By hijacking brainstorming thread. Nice ...

It was never done this way and I hope it will stay that way.
If you mean to bring AS to every MC dev thread,
then I don't see why we have Pojo server forum.
I'm not saying it should be completely separate,
but it should be limited to only issues that are not transparent to AS.
e.g. deployers api, OSGi-fication, ...


View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4224788#4224788

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4224788