Hey Peter,

thx. It's worth reading. IMHO I would do anything done with Monitors within a Aspect.
AOP is better to encapasulate things which can lead to a bad code smell 
(ShotGunSurgery, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CopyAndPasteProgramming)
and hurt the DRY principle...

--
tobias rademacher
[sofwareentwickler]

innoWake gmbh
innovative.software.development();
graf-arco-strasse 18 | 89079 ulm-donautal
fon: +49 (0)7 31 - 5 50 27 - 0
fax: +49 (0)7 31 - 5 50 27 - 20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.innowake.de



> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Courcoux Peter, Slough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Juni 2004 16:30
> An: 'Turbine Users List'
> Betreff: RE: Container Support in Turbine
> 
> 
> The following document, which I believe was written by Alex 
> Karasulu may be
> of interest to anyone looking at IOC containers. The bit on container
> independence might be particularly appropriate. 
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/directory/subprojects/eve/components.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tobias rademacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 30 June 2004 13:44
> To: Turbine Users List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: AW: Container Support in Turbine
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> > Now, the nice thing about using the Avalon based components 
> > is that they
> > will run unchanged in both the Excalibur and Merlin containers.
> > Additionally, since Avalon is an Apache project, using them 
> > follows the "Eat
> > your own dog food" approach.  We get great support from the 
> > Avalon mailing
> > list, and many of the Fulcrum components run in either 
> > Excalibur or Merlin
> > containers in their unit tests.  Some even run in BOTH containers!
> 
> The __interfaces__ you write for Avalon should compatible 
> with all other
> IoC containters - despite the Component inferface dependency.
> All you have to do is to provide several implementations. 
> Other framworks tend to be more non-invasive. In fact this is 
> just a matter
> of taste.
> Everybody knows that frictionless/architecuturless components 
> are currently
> just a dream ;)
> 
> As Avalon does not resolves dependecies by itself (you have 
> to do the lookup
> in IoC Type I) 
> this is the only resaon for reimplemention. Maybe some taff 
> guy (or even a
> girl ;) )
> has a great idea who to abstract with with
> yet-another-cool-way-to-create-an-apdater ;).
> 
> 
> > Having said that though, Turbine is an open source project, 
> > and if you have
> > an itch, scratch it..  I would be happy to see 
> > Pico/HiveMind/Spring/Name
> > your container support added to Turbine.  The components in 
> > Fulcrum (like
> > Security) right now work just with Avalon containers.  
> > However, this is
> > mainly an artifact of the principle developers using Avalon 
> > containers.  If
> > someone wanted to abstract out the container aspects of 
> > Fulcrum Security so
> > it would run in multiple containers, as long as there where 
> > sufficient unit
> > tests, I'd be happy to have that.
> 
> Of course. I tend to agree and will discuss this point in the team.
> __Maybe__ we can provide the 
> Spring-Hibernate-Flucrum-Security stuff for the
> community?!?.
> If not I could try to remplement it at home. It's really a 
> pice of cake.
> 
> > 
> > Heck, someone wrote a SimpleContainerService which in turn 
> > looked components
> > up from a chain of containers, returning the component the 
> > first time it
> > resolved properly.  That way the rest of the application 
> > doesn't know/care
> > what container is being used.
> 
> As having said:  frictionless/architecuturless components are 
> just a dream
> but not impossible ;)
> Has someone a cool concept/idea/thought convering this?
> 
> 
> --
> tobias rademacher
> [sofwareentwickler]
> 
> innoWake gmbh
> innovative.software.development();
> graf-arco-strasse 18 | 89079 ulm-donautal
> fon: +49 (0)7 31 - 5 50 27 - 0
> fax: +49 (0)7 31 - 5 50 27 - 20
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.innowake.de
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> Scanned for viruses by MessageLabs
> 
> 
> 
> Scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The integrity and 
> security of this message cannot be guaranteed. This email is 
> intended for the named recipient only, and may contain 
> confidential information and proprietary material. Any 
> unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited.
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to