Twitter move to Java

Justin Clift jclift at redhat.com
Fri Nov 16 23:36:39 UTC 2012


On 16/11/2012, at 11:13 PM, Hugh Brock wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 09:50:08PM +0100, Justin Clift wrote:
<snip>
>> Do you reckon it's worthwhile for the Aeolus Release Cabal to look into having
>> Torquebox be a "supported" upstream platform for Aeolus in a future release?
>> 
>> Obviously not near term, but down the track if/when it makes sense.
> I think this is a Tech Cabal matter to start with.

Now that you mention it, that definitely makes sense.  There's scope for
discussion, but yeah, they'd be the ones to say if it's going to be too
much effort and so forth.


> To explain why I'll
> restate what I said on IRC earlier re jruby/torquebox:
> 
> 1. Torquebox and jruby are awesome and I would love to support
> them. I've never heard a single negative report about compatibility and
> performance and I think it would be a huge win.
> 
> 2. However we have to be really careful that our source code remains
> compatible with a bog-standard Ruby environment (i.e. MRI + standard
> rubygems) or we will have undone all the hard work we've done making our
> upstream palatable to normal Ruby developers. To be specific, any gem
> with c extensions will not (by default) work in torquebox, for obvious
> reasons. We would have to make sure that any torquebox services we use
> are pluggable such that our code will use native Ruby alternatives when
> we're not running in Torquebox.
> 
> 3. I've been told that these kinds of compatibility problems are
> lessening, and the fact that Charles, bobmcw, and mgoldmann are awesome
> and will be anxious to help us succeed is a point in torquebox/jruby's
> favor.
> 
> 4. We will need to think about how to deal with production deployments
> when running on torquebox, which requires EAP (JBoss).

All good points. :)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
Aeolus Cloud Evangelist
http://www.aeolusproject.org




More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list