I'm starting on the Geronimo integration with OpenEJB 3 today, and I
think this Push model is exactly what I'm going to need. If you stub
out this interface soon, I'll be able to provide feedback as I stub
out the Geronimo integration.
-dain
On Jan 4, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 9:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I like this. It would make *deep* embedding much easier if there
where a single object to start with that encapsulated the details
of the Assembler and ContainerSystem.
Yea, if you read all of this thread where I propose the properties
stuff[1] to Vincent who was doing a Cactus integration, the
ultimate feeling from him was that he would prefer a more Jetty-
like approach where he could simply "build" things himself.
I guess I would describe this assembler as more of a "push"
approach rather than a "pull" approach that we have now in the
classic assembler. Push == you construct and call us, Pull ==
we'll construct and call you. I.e. with a Pull you have to
implement an interface that we consume to pull our data out. Not
ideal for everyone.
I like Push vs. Pull description.
BTW would there be methods to add and remove ServerServices?
I guess we could do that, but that code is in a completely
different package not seen by openejb-core at compile time so the
actual "how" would have to be clever. Maybe we simply offer a
similar interface in the openejb-server module and make the Finder
approach simply one way to add ServerServices.
That sounds cool. It will also help newbies catch on to how
OpenEJB has completely decoupled protocol specific code from the
general container code.
-dain
