Sure, good idea. So the ServletContainerAdapter interface would have a new method getFactory( Class factoryClass ) where Factory.class.isAssignableFrom( factoryClass ) must be true?
In my case, URLTemplatesFactory would need to extend Factory and would implement the init() method where I'd use the static method Factory.getFactory(). I noted that the Factory class implementation takes a PageflowFactory object (which extends an xmlbeans XmlObject) as an argument to the static getFactory() method containing a String for the class name of the factory... and then uses DiscoveryUtils to get a class loader. Not sure this jibes with what you were asking for. For a generic Factory from the container adapter, I'm not sure we'd always have an XmlObject to pass in. I'm now a little confused as to how best to use the Factory class. Rich, do you have more thoughts on this? Thanks, Carlin On 6/24/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Carlin, > > This makes sense to me. As to getting a Factory from the > ServletContainerAdapter, would it be possible to have the method > signature take a base Class instead of String? Seems like we can avoid > finding a classloader and loading the class each time, and in most cases > we'd be passing a statically-known Class. > > Rich > > Carlin Rogers wrote: > > >All, > > > >I'm implementing a way to get a URLTemplateFactory from the > >ServletContainerAdapter. However, I'm not sure a specific > >method like this follows with the other methods that a > >ServletContainerAdapter implementation provides. > > > >One thought would be I'd like to have a generic way to get > >a Factory from the the ServletContainerAdapter given a > >class name. > > > >We already do this using class names from the config file. > >The generic Factory class is in the pageflow package. > >It would be great to move this to the utils or core package > >of NetUI. Then I could also add this to the ServletContainerAdapter. > >I would also move the FactoryConfig class as well as we > >already have other Config support in utils. > > > >I don't think Factory or FactoryConfig are used by or > >exposed to beehive users. It should be a safe move to make. > > > >Opinions or concerns? Or other ideas for providing a generic > >way to create a Factory from a container specific implementation? > > > >Thanks, > >Carlin > > > > > > >
