atm, the PCD contains the URI of the component and the definitions
for all its services and references. The Java sub-class of this adds
the scope, classloader id, and room for the bytecode for the
InstanceFactory. I'd like to suggest a couple of changes to this:
Firstly, transporting Scope is not enough on its own as there is more
than one COMPOSITE scope. The builders used to get this from the
deployment context but with federation it will need to be passed to
in the PCD. I think instead we should treat ScopeContainers as
resources and give them IDs like ClassLoaders. For COMPOSITE scope
the ID can be the URI of the component implemented by the composite;
for others we can use well known IDs. Every component has a scope so
I think we can put scopeContainerID down in to PCD itself.
Secondly, I don't think the PCD needs the service and reference
definitions. Instead we can replace those with PWDs that connect the
component either to other local application components or to the
components provided by the transport implementations. In other words,
bindings aren't special any more. This will simplify both component
builders and binding implementations as the former won't need to deal
with them and the latter simply become transport components with
wires attached.
Finally, rather than jamming the bytecode directly into the JavaPCD,
I think it should contain a InstanceFactoryProvider. This will allow
us to plug providers (e.g. reflective vs. code-genned).
I'm going to start making this last change and integrate the Java and
System PCDs and builders.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
