Knut, I don't see any reason why we couldn't get it in for 1.1. I would agree that having to have two services is a bit cumbersome. If we could, like you said, inject a MethodInterceptor object into the factory (we have to use separate factories to wrap each type of MethodInterceptor because of the ordering problem, which we may also want to solve sometime by maybe adding a "name" or "orderingName" attribute to the interceptor element), which in turn can have other services injected into it, then we're golden. We've talked about this before that there needs to be some sort of PojoBuilder or something that allows us to build arbitrary objects and inject services into them. These objects are not needed as services themselves. I would consider these objects to be more along the lines of "infrastructure" or "support" objects. But, as we can agree, it's too cumbersome to just let them be hidden services (one possible alternative), because you have to define a service point and implementation. Then again, if we go down that road, we're looking more and more like Spring (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). I still think that all services that are exposed via the registry should have to be "well-formed" (i.e. have a service interface).
James -----Original Message----- From: Knut Wannheden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 11:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: AOPAlliance Service Interceptors... James, Wouldn't it be possible to get it in for the next 1.1 alpha or beta release? The implementation you have provided (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVEMIND-45) is somewhat cumbersome to use as two services have to be provided for non trivial cases, but I think it's a good start. Converting it to Javassist (if at all necessary) should not be too difficult either. Slightly off topic (although I think this would make the method interceptor factory easier to use): What I think would be cool would be a new object provider similar to instance: but which in addition also would perform dependency injection. Possibly the instance: provider could even be extended in such a way to make that an option. (And maybe even <create-instance>.) --knut On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:34:36 -0500, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello, All. Since the AOPAlliance Service Interceptors support didn't make > it into 1.1, when can we expect that to become available? I would like to > discuss service interceptors in my article, but there is NO WAY that I'm > going to try to explain how to do it using Javassist. I would like to use > the AOPAlliance stuff. > > > > James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
