On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:45 pm, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:18, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > interface ServiceManager
> > {
> > Object lookup( String urn ) throws NoSuchValueException;
> > void bind( String urn, Object value )
> > throws AlreadyBoundException;
> > }
> >
> > Any thoughts or inputs?
>
> JNDI does it better and is a standard so if you want that sort of interface
> then JNDI should be the way to go. In which case JNDIKit is already
> implemented so may aswell use that ;) If you were to go this way then you
> may aswell just have one lifecycle interface
>
> interface Component
> {
> void init( Context c ) throws Exception;
Context here is a JNDI Context, yes?
> void destroy();
> }
Where would start(), stop(), suspend(), resume() and re*() fit into this? How
about lifecycle extensions?
I'm not sure that collapsing information delivery into a single lifecycle
method, means we have to throw away all the remaining lifecycle methods.
Maybe we should. Maybe we shouldn't.
> If that route is taken - is it really Avalon anymore?
Does it matter? If it's more useable from the component writer's PoV, then we
should consider it. Of course, we don't know what (if anything) is more
useful than framework 4 yet, but that's the point of this discussion.
> Things you put in "Active Use" are only relevent to request based
> architectures where the container demarcs the request boundardaries. Where
> this is not true then you have just unecessarily limited the types of
> containers.
Can you explain this a little more? How does it limit the types of
containers?
--
Adam
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
