Berin Loritsch wrote: > > From: Robert Mouat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Michael McKibben wrote: > > > > > Isn't this a chicken-and-the-egg problem? The CM must know which > > > component instance to call lookup() on! Perhaps if it was a static > > > method that was introspected, but I'm not sure that is a viable > > > solution. JNDI has some nifty solutions that might be possible to > > > borrow from, e.g. the Referenceable interface and the > > > ObjectFactory/ObjectFactoryBuilder. > > > > that's why I suggested that they be singletons (i.e. only one > > instance of the component). > > > > however - even if they were given some other lifestyle it > > would still work, there would just be redundant instances. > > Keep in mind that there are ways of creating singletons without static > accessors. However that gets back to the ThreadSafe argument, which > is what we are wanting to solve. Meta Data is the best way of doing > this.
I did mean 'singletons' in a threadsafe/non-static way. In fact I was thinking that you'd want to be able to create several singleton components from the same class... e.g. if there are 2 components A and B - and I want to trace method calls on both of them. I could create 2 proxy components A-trace and B-trace to trace the method calls (as per previous email). A-trace and B-trace would both be singleton components (there is no need to create more than one instance) - however they would both be of the class TracingProxy but configured differently. Hence static methods wouldn't work very well. Having said that I would make them singletons - they don't *need* to be used that way - there is no reason why a new instance of A-trace couldn't be created every time someone wanted the component A (though this is probably not going to be the most efficient way of doing things). Robert. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
