ObjectWeb Consortium
Search ObjectWeb Mail Archive: 

Advanced Search - Powered by Google


Mail Archive Home | deployment List | May 2004 Index

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Re: [fractal] Re: [architecture] Fractal packaging & deployment, bis


Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Eric Bruneton wrote:
> >I hope it will be possible to create a deployment infrastructure
> > for deploying Fractal-based applications that can also deploy
> > arbitrary (Java and non Java) applications. This is not
> > contradictory: it just imply that arbitrary applications can be
> > seen as Fractal-based applications (and this should be possible
> > since the Fractal model is modular, extensible, and not tied to
> > Java; for example, plain old Java objects are compliant with
> > Fractal level 0).
>
> Of course, this forces people to view their arbitrary Java
> applications in Fractal terms just to deploy it. It doesn't sound

no: they will of course have the choice to use any other model/tool to 
deploy them.

> like this would be a successful approach. I understand your goal,
> but to me it seems like you are reversing the order of things. You
> want to create a specific framework for deploying a specific
> component model and then figure out how this can work for abritrary
> applications.

I think the primary goal is to provide an infrastructure for Fractal 
users to deploy Fractal applications. But since, as you said, we can 
not expect everything to be Fractal based, we must also provide a 
mean to deploy legacy components with the same tools and the same 
concepts (so that if you have a Fractal based application with a lot 
of Fractal components, but also with one or two legacy components, 
you can still deploy it with this infrastructure). The goal is not to 
replace all other deployment infrastructures.

> The approach it sounds like you are proposing, as I understand it,
> is somewhat equivalent to creating an app server that defines a
> mapping of EJB beans to Fractal and then telling people who want to
> do EJB development to view their beans in terms of Fractal. They
> aren't interested in Fractal, they are interested in EJB. The same
> is true for someone wanting to deploy their application.

idem

> My impression is that Fractal is supposed to be the model
> underlying the middleware created by ObjectWeb, not a concept
> mapping language for everything.

idem

> I understand that there is a desire to put Fractal underneath
> everything else (i.e., just above the Java layer), and this
> approach might work if everything were based on Fractal, but this
> will probably not become a reality any time soon. As such, trying
> to push Fractal so far down the stack is probably a bad idea since
> it will be too large of a leap for many developers who are not
> using Fractal.

idem

Eric



<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Reply via email to:

Powered by MHonArc.

Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.