I was struck this morning with just the right way to explain the difference between Spring and HiveMind.
Spring is based on a recipe philosophy. If you want a particular kind of behavior, there's a recipe for getting it. You want declarative transactions? You lookup up the recipe for it ... you define your bean implementation (in Spring terminology, a "target bean", the other beans you need (a transaction manager bean in this case), and then combine them into a final bean, ready for use in the application.
Along the way, you may have to cut-and-paste some details, particularly the beans (transactionManager and friends) provided by Spring. On the other hand, you have a single place (your beans XML file) to look for all the details.
HiveMind uses a very different philosophy: a component oriented approach. In HiveMind, modules (that is, JARs packaged with a HiveMind module deployment descriptor) provide services (and configurations) using well-known names (those fully qualified service and configuration ids). Just by having the JARs on the classpath, the services are defined and waiting to be used, directly or indirectly, in your application.
Is this difference that important? I think so. HiveMind has a greater opportunity to be an integration platform than Spring. Over time, underlying frameworks change and its easy to imagine a number of situations where a commonly used bean, such as a transaction manager in Spring, would change over time. These changes could be something as simple as adding new properties or methods, or something more dramatic such as renaming a class or moving it to a new package.
Under the Spring model, upgrading from one release to another may break existing bean configurations.
Under the HiveMind model, the provided service would still have the same fully qualified id and service interface even if its implementation is radically changed ... and any such changes are restricted to the JAR and its module deployment descriptor.
In practice, this is not such a big deal; people don't go willy-nilly changing versions of important frameworks for the applications without the expectation that they'll need to do a good amount of testing and perhaps some tinkering.
In fact, the core difference in the philosophies is not about managing change over time, but in managing configurations across different simultaneous deployments. For Vista, the product that birthed HiveMind, there were pending requirements to support multiple databases (Oracle, MS SQL Server, perhaps PostgreSQL) with a single code base. The idea was that the application code would call into a data access object layer (implemented as HiveMind services), and those services would, in turn, call into a database abstraction layer to do the real work. The abstract layer would also be HiveMind services, with a set specific to Oracle, to SQL Server, etc.
One option was to isolate the different abstraction layers into different JARs and just control which JARs were put into deployment.
A pending (and only potential) requirement for Vista was to be able to provide different scaled versions of the product to different clients. So, a small school might get the JBoss version with a small number of Vista tools. The Vista application is divided up into a large number, about 30, different tools, each focused on a particular part of the application, such as Mail, Discussions, Quizzes, Lab Assignments, and so forth.
A large implementation of Vista might want the fully suite of Tools, and be set up to deploy into WebLogic and Oracle.
The HiveMind vision is that the installer tool for Vista could simply decide which of the modules should be deployed based on licensing information. In this way, rather than maintain different installers and different configurations of the product (with potential duplication of code across source trees), we rely on HiveMind to integrate the application on the fly, at startup.
Alas, I switched over to consulting long before I had a chance to see any part of this vision take root at WebCT ... but if you are curious why HiveMind is the way it is, that vision is the root cause.