: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Christian Essl
-levels
(OSGi like). This would also help to start timers etc.
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it. Sorry
Benjamin! That should certainly be a bug.
-Harish
Christian Essl wrote:
But, if I'm a client and I call registry.getService() I absolutely
want a
service or an exception! Otherwise I have to stick null checks in
all over
I agree. Actullay I was always expecting HiveMind to do
an exception, too?
I don't want to open pandora's box here, but I hit a similar issue
with that as well.
Ben
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:32:04 -0500
Harish Krishnaswamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e
]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a two
step initilitation process - construct, save, init, return (takes some
flexibility from the ServiceImplementationFactories)? Or feeding the proxy
before returning it (more circular restrictive)?
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:26:12 +0100
Christian Essl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, if I'm
.
Is there another solution that gets rid of the InstanceHolder class
(custom rule?) ?
Bye
Achim
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Christian Essl
.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
in other software,
but still).
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://howardlewisship.com
-Original Message-
From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
is provided than the child Elements
are contained in the list. If the element has no childs an empty list is
passed in. It also supports recursive definitions.
To see how I imagine its use see the test-case.
Maybe someone could comment on that.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Essl
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://howardlewisship.com
-Original Message-
From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [HiveMind] nested schemas
I
another try without a sessin-model actually quite simular to yours.
A ServiceFactory which is thread-local and delegates to another SerciceFact. the
servicefact checks if the implementation is already in the session if not creates it
and returns. it also keeps a list off all handed out
flexible setups. Ie if it is recursively applied
BeanFactory could profit.
However as said I don't know if this is hard to implement. I don't realy
get this schema code 8-).
Thanks,
Chris
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e
post the code if anybody is interested.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
Sorry I made a mistake I meant ProxyFactory.extend() not create().
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:37:06 -0500, Harish Krishnaswamy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely! Thanks for the tips. So that's what I'll do.
-Harish
Christian Essl wrote:
Hi Harish,
I agree with you that HiveMind should provide
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:45 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [HiveMind] Interceptors - CGLIB / Javassist comparison
Seems that's what you said before ;) But nevermind this is a
more-than-enough-pointer!
-Harish
Christian Essl wrote:
Sorry I made
-
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]
--
Christian Essl http
In the documentation the parent method attribute for the conversion tag is
named 'parentMethod', while the DescriptorParsers uses 'parent-method'.
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
=.. order=security. Maybe the ServiceInterceptorFactories
could even provide a default-value.
--
Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: 4031
As I see interceptors for general use should be created using javaassist,
however other interceptors (which just add some custom AOP for some
components) could well be implemented using MethodInterceptors. Here the
higher convinience pays off.
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
a purely javassist-based interceptor, as I do
not
feel it is very intuitive. However, this simpler approach does seem to
be a
nice compromise and I would like to present it.
-Original Message-
From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday,
November 25, 2003 7:38 AM
To: [EMAIL
different locations etc.
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the threaded model as I see interceptors are created for each core-
impl. Wouldn't it be enough that interceptors wrap the proxy. This would
certainly be more performant. Or maybe have interceptors under order lets
say 1000 wrap the core-impl (and be created each time) and others wrap the
3.) Event Publish/Subscribe Service (Harish does something there)
4.) adding RelaxNG choice group tags to schemas
5.) user defined configuration processing (validation?)
6.) a service-model which allows unloading(replacing?) of implementations
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
registration out of the services.
Propably there are other (better) solutions however it would be realy great
if someone could give me some solution to the mentioned problems.
Chris
-- Christian Essl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Christian Essl wrote:
I'm a bit unsure about the strategy HiveMind currently takes to the
event mechanism. As I see IOC recommends some sort publish/subscribe
mechanism as opposed the JavaBean's style thing. Especially for HiveMind
I think to see some problems with an event mechanism where
. Just add a boolean onlyValidating and
call out to the rules only when the property is false.
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
]
--
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
-
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]
--
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Options are good.
Christian Essl wrote:
I am personally quite happy with the digester/translator aproach
HiveMind uses currently.
I like Knut's suggestion to split up the validating schema from the
processing.
Maybe in a later release of HiveMind it could be possible to use a
something like
://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
Christian Essl
attributes.
You are right marker interfaces are not nice if you see JD 1.5 on the
horizont. The question is wheter we want to wait with this until we don't
need JD 1.4 compliance anymore.
--
Christian Essl http://jucas.sourceforge.net
Your DAO is quite evolved, and I don't realy know Tapestry, but let me
still try to say how I would do it:
First I would directly expose the Registry in the Global and the
application gets the DAO directly from the Registry. The Registry should
not be build up too often it's just too
Sorry I wrote my answer send it and than just saw that Harish was faster
(and better). Maybe the only thing you should keep from my anser that you
should shutdown the registry (the pool may need it, because HiveMind now
supports a shut-down event).
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:12:37 -0400, Harish
-0500, Bill Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, October 3, 2003 at 16:45:42 (+0200) Christian Essl writes:
Sorry I wrote my answer send it and than just saw that Harish was faster
(and better). Maybe the only thing you should keep from my anser that
you should shutdown the registry
(+0200) Christian Essl writes:
...
Than I would give out the DOA directly as a service. Than as you also
said (for your second question) I would implement a ConnectionPool
service interface and a (or more) implementation(s) (one which just
holds one connection - for your testing). Than I would
I looked again at the EventListenerList and it is right that the
EventListenerList is concurrency save but not thread save. I also looked at
the JavaBeans-Specification and I saw that I was wrong, because it is left
open wheter a modification is regarded during event-delivery. (I still
think
That's certainly a good idea.
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:50:42 +0200, Knut Wannheden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering whether it would make sense to extend the BuildFactory
service (or maybe add a new wervice) to also be able to construct objects
by
returning the value of a classes
That's very good (and fast implemented). But do you realy have to do the
double-check on the class. I mean the user sees anyway what class it is
from the JavaDoc and HiveMind will always check that it fits the Service
interface.
Sure if the static field changes this ensures consistency, but on
different instances)? If so, what is the need to have
a static instance? I suppose I can see a use for it to share data
between threads, but the singleton service should suffice?
Johan
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:52:58 +0200, Christian Essl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's very good (and fast implemented
That would be realy helpful. Maybe we could add a properties tag which
would include the current BuilderFactory tags and set the properties after
the service is constructed.
contruct class=...
service service-id=.../
configuration configuration-id=.../
int value=.../
(etc.)
properties
I'd like to suggest a new service-model, which allows to replace and/or
shut-down a service-implementation at runtime. (The latest refactoring
makes this much easier).
The model works basicly like the deferred-model (except that it always
returns the proxy). Initially it is in the deferred
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
-Original Message-
From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday,
September 30, 2003 7:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [HiveMind] New service-model hot
The framework code uses this pattern to differentiate between the module-id
and the service/configuraton id.
Also for your own configurations it's realy confinient. Just check if a dot
is contained in the id and
you know that a contribution references something in the current module or
not.
There is now a getSchema on the ConfigurationPoint, but I don't know how to
get the ConfigurationPoint from the module (Is there another way?). Sorry
if I didn't explain it or checked it a bit late:
My ConfiguratonBuilderFactory is a normal ServiceImplementationFactory
which does not have its
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
-Original Message-
From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday,
September 30, 2003 7:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [HiveMind] Acess to schema - the second
There is now a getSchema
Because the introduction to HiveMind somewhere says that HiveMind is also a
sort of Singleton manager I'd like to suggest to document somewhere (may be
in the api-docs) that when a Service is gotten twice from the Registry - in
case of the deffered-service-type - the two returned instances are
' events too or would it be too much to put it all
into one interface?
Regards,
Johan
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:46:14 +0200, Christian Essl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've written a Service which registers Destroyable Services (a special
interface which must be implemented by the service-interace
the service; the user
data is aside the point.
-Harish
Christian Essl wrote:
I think thats realy an intresting question. I mean I don't realy know
but I think - as you do - a Service provides a specific functionality.
However I am not sure wheter this must always be data-hiding - just look
with this
free glueing together.
-Harish
Christian Essl wrote:
That is a proof for the diversity of things HiveMind can be used for. Do
you think of using services as a sort of connector to different lab-
instruments. I also have to say that I do not realy understand a lot
(better nothing) of LIMS
instead of BuilderFactory?
In case any of you missed it.
Christian Essl wrote:
I am realy found of the idea of using the BuilderFactory.
What I suggest is that you have like for configuration-points also the
possibility to define a schema(-processing) for the most important
'configuration
Sorry if I fleed you with (useless?) ideas, but you know they just come up
when I look in the code and compare it to other apis (especially JBoss JMX)
.
As I see HiveMind is a cool combination of a very good configuration api
and a good but improveable service-manager, which allows to split up
Hold off for a bit until I get a grasp of where you're headed.
Thank you for your answer and sorry that I did not realy make so clear what
it is good for. My suggestion may look big but is rather small.
I'm concerned about some lifecycle issues; especially maintaining good
support for
Javassist doesn't do inner classes, so there's still going to be some
kind of _setService() kind of
method used by the proxy when it replaces itself.
Thank you that's right, and as you see I don't realy know Javassist.
I'm using _ to indicate infrastructure methods, in the believe that
this
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:56:08 -0400, James Carman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since you stated on the website that HiveMind is agnostic about how
interceptors are implemented, is there a way to use proxies rather than
javassist?
Yes you can use DynamicProxies. Just create a ServiceInterceptorFactory
thread and you register directly the
CoreService the CoreService may be called out of the one thread and this
will break what I think most peaple use this service-type for namely no
need for synchronization.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:12:36 +0200, Christian Essl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Service
Howard suggested a Service which produces EventHanddlers. Following on that
I suggested a Central Event Service:
A Service where (all) Services can register themself with the event-type
(listener interface) and an event-id they are interested in and the
firing Service just imforms the central
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:38:41 -0400, Howard M. Lewis Ship
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harish's suggestion:
service id= -- service-point id=
extend-service service-id= -- service service-id=
extension-point id= -- configuration-point id=
extension point-id= -- configuration point-id=
Last point was
Yes, I would agree with this and generally would suggest to hold the registry in the
ServletContext. I think the ServletContext is thought for this. I actually use as
ContextListener which builds the Registry up when my web-app is started.
Howard M. Lewis Ship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think
Yes, exactly.
Like:
public static Registry constructDefaultRegistry(){
ClassResolver resolver = new DefaultClassResolver();
RegistryBuilder builder = new RegistryBuilder();
builder.processModules(resolver);
Registry registry =
What if you had two applications running under the
same context though?
I guess they should have (as recommended by the
servlet-spec) have attribute names like
[package-name].HiveMindRegistry. (Of course if you
mean two
Tapestry apps you will have to find another way).
And how will
Oh yes, of course, I like HiveMind and it helps me, I am happy to help
where I can.
Once we form up, we should be able to get everyone commit rights to the
hivemind CVS repository.
Really? Without any patches/code? Unless they're already Jakarta (Apache?)
committers, commit rights won't be
I'd like to propose a module level tag, with which it is possible to
register Interceptors with all in the Registry Services or all Services
which implement a (some) certain interface(s).
This is an interesting idea; I'll take a peek when I get the chance.
Some other ideas I've considered:
As I see the option to override the contribution to a service was removed.
The cvs log just states that this was
a bad idea. Why was override a bad idea?.
I thing it was a good idea. Especially in an api which requires a service a
default working implementation could be defined (without
Thank you. This is realy the better aproach.
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:55:55 -0400, Howard M. Lewis Ship
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I see the option to override the contribution to a service was
removed. The cvs log just states that this was
a bad idea. Why was override a bad idea?.
It led to a
I'd like to propose a module level tag, with which it is possible to
register Interceptors with all in the Registry Services or all Services
which implement a (some) certain interface(s). I've implemented a proposal
for this feature and tested it - the diff is attached.
These
68 matches
Mail list logo
