Posted by
Jacopo Cappellato on
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-Replacing-JOTM-and-Carol-tp167754p167761.html
Andy,
it's interesting to read your opinion about this important subject. I
see pros and cons for both JOTM and Geronimo TM:
# JOTM - pros
1) it works fine for OFBiz
2) the integration is stable, it has been in OFBiz for many years
3) the core developers (you and David and probably someone else, not me)
already know how to deal with it
# JOTM - cons
1) my impression is that the project is not actively maintained and
developed by the objectweb comunity (very few messages in the lists etc...)
2) it is licensed under the BSD license, but there are some license
issues because in the JOTM distribution the howl.jar (used for
journaling) is included and howl is released under the LGPL license;
now, there is a debate on this (can a LGPL jar be included and
distributed in a MIT style licensed project or not? at the ASF it seems
that they are more inclined to say 'no')
#Geronimo TM - pros
1) actively maintained by the Geronimo community under the ASF
2) no license issues, it is licensed under the ASL2.0
3) it's always good to have one more open source option to choose from
(JOTM or Geronimo)
4) after the initial integration problems, David seems to have found a
way to integrate it (in the embedded style like JOTM)... why should we
stop now? ;-)
#Geronimo TM - cons
1) it is a new tool for OFBiz, we will have to test it and it could
bring some instabilities in the short term
2) the core team will have to learn this new tool (no one in this
community seems to have used it before)
What do you (Andy, and others as well) think of this?
Jacopo
A. Zeneski wrote:
> Again, tell me why we don't just comment out Carol, throw in a quick
> RMI Registry class (Free ones all over the place, I have one, MX4J
> has one) and use continue to use JOTM (BSD License)??
>
> On May 1, 2006, at 4:58 AM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>> Okay, cute... I'll look into that. I'm 99% sure I know why they
>> would use that package: because the Geronimo code has some
>> protected fields or methods that they need to use in order to do
>> what they do. This doesn't work with certain security setting in
>> Java, but is a nice trick that can be made to work without changing
>> the "other project".
>>
>> We did this for a while with BeanShell until it became a problem
>> and now just use a modified version of BeanShell (to support
>> caching of interpreted scripts).
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> thanks for pushing this work forward!
>>> I did some research about the GeronimoTransactionManager class and
>>> I've
>>> discovered that it is one of three classes implemented in the Jencks
>>> project to extend the Geronimo transaction manager; here is the
>>> link to
>>> the source code in CVS:
>>>
>>>
http://cvs.jencks.codehaus.org/jencks/src/main/java/org/apache/
>>> geronimo/transaction/context/GeronimoTransactionManager.java?
>>> view=markup
>>>
>>> I really don't know why they implemented it in the
>>> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.context package instead of in the
>>> org.jencks... package, however the source code are in the jencks
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps... I'd love to help you more than this, but I'm
>>> still a
>>> bit confused by the transaction manager framework, sorry!
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> I started looking into this and put some basic stuff in place,
>>>> but with no real success. The example from Jencks was interesting
>>>> but used a class called GeronimoTransactionManager that must have
>>>> been from some pre-1.0 release as it does not exist in 1.0 or in
>>>> the current Geronimo SVN code base.
>>>>
>>>> I randomly tried some objects found looking directly at the
>>>> Geronimo JavaDocs, but with no success. In a cursory review I
>>>> also could not find anything along these lines in the Geronimo docs.
>>>>
>>>> The infrastructure I played with is in SVN. Just change the
>>>> transaction-factory tag at the beginning of the entityengine.xml
>>>> file to use the now commented out geronimo one. Changes can go in
>>>> the GeronimoTransactionFactory class, which is direct for now
>>>> rather than using JNDI. I figure we can worry about that later
>>>> and the direct model in the Entity Engine is easier for now.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has any ideas or resources related to this that would
>>>> be great...
>>>>
>>>> Note that none of this attempts to replace Minerva (XA aware
>>>> connection pool) yet, just starting with the transaction manager
>>>> for now. Of course, if anyone has any ideas about that part of
>>>> Geronimo it would also be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Note also that this is an attempt to use the embedded approach to
>>>> have certain parts of Geronimo running in OFBiz rather than
>>>> deploying OFBiz in Geronimo (which isn't trivial with 1.0, but
>>>> may be easier with later Geronimo releases).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>>
[hidden email]
>>>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>>
[hidden email]
>>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev