avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Dumon <br...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: Is the Fortress Direction Official?
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2004 07:50:05 GMT
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 20:01, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> fortress/ecm migration
> ----------------------
> Irrespective o9f interests in delivering an ecm/fortress facility - 
> there remains an outstanding requirement for the delivery of an 
> ecm/fortress migration strategy.  Based on experience with the Turbine 
> Fulcrum project .. this is reasonably strait forward for non-pooled 
> components.  The main problem areas concern Selector semantics - 
> however, this can be address using the finder facility.  Today this 
> means on-list collaboration - and form that we'll get in place the docs 
> for general migration.  My guess is that this will be demand driven ... 
> i.e. don't wait for it to happen - if you need it push for it!

ok, I'll help to do some pushing. I could use something like selectors.
It doesn't have to be selectors, the finder would also fit.

Currently the finder looks like this:

public interface Finder
    Object find( Class service ) throws FinderException;
    void release( Object object );

To have something selector-like, it should need an additional find
method like:

Object find( Class service, String hint ) throws FinderException;

The hint could be specified on the component as an attribute.

Or more generic:

Object find( Class service, Map attributes ) throws FinderException;

whereby the attributes would be checked against the attributes declared
on components.

Bruno Dumon                             http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org                          bruno@apache.org

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

View raw message