avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Service Interface
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:09:00 GMT
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:17, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Well, the Service is already deprecated.  It is not used by the kernel, or
> referenced directly by any known API.  Therefore it is superfluous (sp?).
> I was checking to see if my observation holds true.

It should still be used in the validator. The validator will check to see if 
any service interface implements Service and if it does generate warnings.

> BTW, You and Peter will probably like what I did for the new Container
> abstraction in that department.  The ComponentHandler is identified by
> by the new RoleManager--thereby tying Handler to Component Class.  It
> defaults to a PerThreadComponentHandler which has one instance of the
> Component per requesting thread.  I figured it was a nice balance from a
> pooled implementation and a threadsafe implementation.

I should look at your work here because it is very similar to what I am doing 
over in ant-land. My initial work was based on the ECM that was much less 
tightly coupled but given how much I dislike ComponentSelector I ended up 
removing that and going with a new interface (TypeFactory). Just recently it 
was decided that we should probably interspice an extra factory between 
component and requested resource (like in Paulos system) that way the 
resource no longer needs to follow Avalon framework lifecycle but still can 
be used from within that.

Anyways if you get a chance checkout 
proposal/myrmidon/src/java/org/apache/myrmidon/component/role
proposal/myrmidon/src/java/org/apache/myrmidon/component/type

from ant CVS and see what you think. They are about to be updated in a bit to 
support the interspicing of factory between service and component (ie your 
equivelent of a handler I guess). But other than that it would be interesting 
to see where we could merge stuff.

> I have yet to move my new managed pool stuff to a new mpool package.
> That way I can get rid of the Poolable interface.

Hell yes!

I have an xpool package that I use for this that I could integrate into mpool 
if it is compatible. However my xpool is mainly for managing passive objects 
(ie. chunks of memory, packets, formatter objects) which don't have any 
"lifecycle" as such. Would this fit in with what you are doing with mpool?

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

--------------------------------
My opinions may have changed, 
but not the fact that I am right
--------------------------------


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message