On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:07, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Peter,
>
> >[.. soap ..]
> >Ignoring for the moment that I don't know anything about soap so the above
> > is probably wrong way to designate a service. Alternatively you could
> > look at it as remote blocks via
> >
> ><block name="my-block-remote"
> > impl="rmi://brainstem.dyndns.org/kane/ScoreDatabase"
> > factory="org.apache.avalon.factorys.RMIFactory">
> ></block>
>
> Don't like the factory by class name thing. It implies that the thing
> will be instantiated. I'd prefer that it was a key to an instance,
> either one from a standard set loaded by the kernel or some custom one
> provided by the assembler.
kool. Thats the same complaint someone else had ;) So you would suggest that
you either use standard factory names or you define factorys at top of
assembly file and then reuse shortname?
<factory name="rmi-factory" factory="org.apache.avalon.factorys.RMIFactory">
...some parameters?...
</factory>
...
<block name="my-block-remote"
impl="rmi://brainstem.dyndns.org/kane/ScoreDatabase"
factory="rmi-factory">
</block>
> Anyway it is close to AltRMI in kernel perhaps? It is also a little
> more suitable to the job...
AltRMI could have a factory. I guess my main point was that any remote or
alternative component system should be able to participate in the system and
using this abstraction would allow it.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it.
Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it.
-- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
