2 Replies Latest reply on Nov 4, 2002 4:22 AM by Tobias Rademacher

    Seperate Framework?

    Tobias Rademacher Newbie

      Hi Guys,

      a short overview of your framework shows me that it is _very_ interesting.

      So I have a two questions:

      Do you plan to deliver it as seperate project or as a seperate downloadable subproject?

      How does it relate to Nanning framework hosted on sourceforge?

      Thx for your comments
      Toby

        • 1. Re: Seperate Framework?
          Hiram Chirino Expert

          > Hi Guys,
          >
          > a short overview of your framework shows me that it
          > is _very_ interesting.
          >
          > So I have a two questions:
          >
          > Do you plan to deliver it as seperate project or as a
          > seperate downloadable subproject?
          >

          If there is demand for this, I'm sure we could do that.

          > How does it relate to Nanning framework hosted on
          > sourceforge?
          >

          I just took a quick look at the Nanning framework. Seems like it is verry simmilar to our stuff. (It is also based on Rickard's AOP framework). I took a quick look at it and seems our stuff is a little further along. We are taking a very generic approach but providing enoungh features so that we can provide EJB features via AOP.

          Regards,
          Hiram


          > Thx for your comments
          > Toby

          • 2. Re: Seperate Framework?
            Tobias Rademacher Newbie

            Hi,

            > > Do you plan to deliver it as seperate project or as
            > a
            > > seperate downloadable subproject?
            > >
            >
            > If there is demand for this, I'm sure we could do
            > that.

            Quite cool. I guess we'll have the demand soon.


            > I just took a quick look at the Nanning framework.
            > Seems like it is verry simmilar to our stuff. (It
            > is also based on Rickard's AOP framework). I took a
            > quick look at it and seems our stuff is a little
            > further along.

            Good. Competion and the ability to choose is always fine. :)

            > We are taking a very generic
            > approach but providing enoungh features so that we
            > can provide EJB features via AOP.

            I followed the debate "EJB vs AOP". So even if the AOP is simplier it will overcome EJB. :-). But making life simplier is not hole goal. We have to maintain the "garden of desing" the java community carries to be so beautifull. (e.g. Compare the simplicity and fine desing of JBoss with Oracle's iAS.... JBoss wins...)
            Looking at Rickard's AOP approach I'm not worried the community will make it again.

            :-)

            Bye
            Toby

            Bye
            Toby