On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:00, Paul Hammant wrote: > Peter, > > >CK will soon adopt notion of Partitions (in progress), dynamic assembly > >(mostly done) and separate containers per partition (not really started > > yet). At that stage there will only be minor differences between the > > containers feature sets and Phoenix will thus inherit these features. > > Please try to keep us included in designs. Partitions++, dynamic > assembly we all buy.
They are not new designs, they are pretty much the same things that I was saying when I started CK. Partitions/scopes/hierarchies are needed in myrmidon and hence why I am working towards them. Dynamic assembly is needed to maintain compatability with existing config files (like kernel.xml in Phoenix or services.xml in Myrmidon). > Separate containers per partition is something I'd > like to understand before it arrives.... Essentially it is similar to how most "enterprise" containers operate. The granularity will be configurable but the idea is same. In Fortress and friends there is the notion of lifestyle "handlers" which is also similar. For example - lets say I deploy 3 components (A, B and C) into a partition. Each component may be "handled/owned" by different container. In Phoenix A, may be a BlockListener and would be handled by the "Listener" container while B and C would be blocks and handled by the "Block" container. In Fortress there is the notion of thread safe, poolable, etc components. Each component lifestyle could have a separate container. In many EJB servers there is notion of CMPEntityContainer or StatelessSessionContainer (or whatever). Each different class of component is allocated to a different container. In some EJB containers there will be separate containers for each bean. Anyways that is the general idea. Each Partition (be it application in Phoenix terms, ejb-jar in EJB terms or config file in fortress times) shares a component namespace but the components contained within the namespace may be handled differently. I have tried to do this several times before in the past. However this ended up being less than successful because of code duplication across containers. Wiht CK gradually cleaning it up, it may be a little more successful this time (or may not). -- Cheers, Peter Donald *---------------------------------------------------------* | Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user-friendly. It | | just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship | | with. | | - Richard Cook | *---------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
