> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I'm arguming aginst what is implied in Berlin's post: > Implications of the post are: > > 1. assertion that containerkit is overly complex (which I > happen to completely disagree with) when the real issue > is the implications this has on concretly defining a > component - emotive words are used in the post that bypass > the real question
Not what I was trying to convey. The message I was trying to convey is let's not use a toolkit to hide a more complext problem if we can avoid the complexity altogether. It is like J2EE's addition of the ServiceLocator interface. It's purpose is to abstract away all calls to the JNDI interface, provide client side caching of the remote object handles, etc. The underlying problem is in the way JNDI is used, adding the extra layer merely hides that fact. My assertion was that covering a complex solution with a simple interface isn't always the better choice. If there is a less complex solution, we should use it. > 2. discussing the merits of thread safety in A5 when in fact > the framework does not concretely support this - kernals > and containers above framework do this but the assertion > is being made that this is a framework issue - it is in > terms of future development - but this is in terms of > delivering something concrete that does not exist in the > framework today Avalon Framework as it stands does not make any claims to support more than one thread. However, we know it would be quite useless if it didn't. Esp. when it is used on the server. The fact that A4 has the release() method to return pooled components to the container implies that this is a correct practice. However, the resolutions of this issue have not been satisfactory yet. We know we want to remove it, but we need to come up with a workable solution so that migration from A4 to A5 for components that assume this behavior will have the least amount of work to do. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
