avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: three improvements to avalon/phoenix
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:14:18 GMT
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:07, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Peter,
> >[.. soap ..]
> >Ignoring for the moment that I don't know anything about soap so the above
> > is probably wrong way to designate a service. Alternatively you could
> > look at it as remote blocks via
> >
> ><block name="my-block-remote"
> >       impl="rmi://brainstem.dyndns.org/kane/ScoreDatabase"
> >       factory="org.apache.avalon.factorys.RMIFactory">
> ></block>
> Don't like the factory by class name thing.  It implies that the thing
> will be instantiated.  I'd prefer that it was a key to an instance,
> either one from a standard set loaded by the kernel or some custom one
> provided by the assembler.

kool. Thats the same complaint someone else had ;) So you would suggest that 
you either use standard factory names or you define factorys at top of 
assembly file and then reuse shortname?

<factory name="rmi-factory" factory="org.apache.avalon.factorys.RMIFactory">
...some parameters?...
<block name="my-block-remote"

> Anyway it is close to AltRMI in kernel perhaps?  It is also a little
> more suitable to the job...

AltRMI could have a factory. I guess my main point was that any remote or 
alternative component system should be able to participate in the system and 
using this abstraction would allow it.


Peter Donald
Fools ignore complexity.  Pragmatists suffer it.
Some can avoid it.  Geniuses remove it.
-- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

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

View raw message