reuse
The basic aim is that by utilising these container architectures we can build a library of services that can be used in applications that are based on frameworks other than Turbine and likewise Turbine can benefit from services written without necessarily targeting Turbine. If someone provides a Quarts based scheduler that targets these containers we should be able to configure it to become part of our Turbine applications with relative ease.
Also, by separating the various services from Turbine itself we can gain the flexibility of decoupling the release schedules for the various component parts - e.g. an updated version of the Quarts scheduler service could be integrated into an application without waiting for Turbine release.
Further, we can capitalise on the evolution of the container architecture without having to maintain them directly.
Scott
-- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au
Gerry Duprey wrote:
Howdy,
Assume for the sake of discussion that I'm trying to figure out why I might want to use one of the above in a project. As I understand it, these all basically provide what seems to me to be very simple services:
- instantiate one or more instances of classes (services) I describe in an XML config file
- Provided named lookup services (i.e. give me an instance of whatever class I bound to the text name "userManager")
- Provide lifecycle management (which seems to mean creating the instances, caching them, if appropriate, and whacking them it when no longer valid, all along calling a set of methods to alert the object of what is happening to it).
Again, this is a simple summary of what I believe these services provide.
My question is: why are these services so important that there are multiple, vigorously supported implementations and things like Turbine are being rearchitected to support them?
Sure, they seem useful services, but just not all that world shattering. In fact, it seems pretty simple stuff (at least conceptually). I can see projects being created without them (just instantiating classes as needed ad such) just as easily, maybe more so.
I'm not trying to denigrate these services - I just feel that the hoopla and effort expended on them compared to what I understand they offer just doesn't seem to add up.
So, in summary, what am I missing here? Clearly something -- lots of smart folks are using them. I'm hoping by explaining my likely incorrect vision of what I'm seeing and asking for clarification, I may yet "see the light" on them. :-)
Thanks in advance!
Gerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
