avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject RE: RE: [VOTE] RE: MutableConfiguration
Date Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:39:37 GMT
Leo,

> 
> From: "Leo Sutic" <leo.sutic@inspireinfrastructure.com>
> > From: Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) 
> > De: Leo Sutic [mailto:leo.sutic@inspireinfrastructure.com]
> > 
> > > I think it should be in the implementation. I don't think 
> > the client 
> > > doing the writing to the MutableConfiguration need to know 
> > if it has 
> > > changed or not.
> > > 
> > > The container knows the impl class, and can see if something
> > > has changed.
> > 
> > 
> > And what about the proposal of registering listerners?
> 
> Same. Put it in the impl.
> 
> Since I see the client as writing *all* its configuration info
> into the MutableConfiguration in *one big go* at some appropriate
> stage, I see no need for the container to continuously monitor
> the activity of the client.

Wait a minute what if the container changes the configuration of 
the client which I presume to be the component being configured?

Basically things like JMX based management consoles should eventually
lead to this situation where a components configuration is altered.
The component needs to be able to respond to a configuration change.
It is only right to allow for change notification via listeners on
this MutableConfiguration.  Basically you need a ConfigurationListener
event and a ConfigurationEvent where you indicate the changes that have
resulted to the configuration.  Or just show the new and the old config
leaving it upto the component to figure out what exactly changed.

However its done the notification should be in the API and not in the
implementation because all MutableConfigurations by definition should
be able to notify listeners of changes when they take place. 

What this move does is pave the way towards being able to implement
the Reconfigurable interface.   If components are Reconfigurable then
as a rule of thumb enforced perhaps by containers supporting the interface
only they (Reconfigurable components) should be able to have 
MutableConfigurations.  Attempts to get a mutable configuration on 
non-Reconfigurables should again as a rule of thumb result in an exception. 

To me changing an objects configuration should produce a noticable result
on the Configurable component.  I don't see the value in changing a 
configuration just for the heck of it.

Alex



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


Mime
View raw message