axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Daniels <g...@thoughtcraft.com>
Subject Re: [axis2] [VOTE][PROPOSAL] ServiceLifecycle interface vs. introspecting methods
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:41:21 GMT
Afkham Azeez wrote:
> Forcing people to implement an interface might not be liked by some 
> people.  One thing ppl do not like about EJBs is that it forces you to 
> implement interfaces. In the simplest scenario, a user can have a POJO, 
> drop this into Axis2 and expose it as a service, also the same POJO may 
> be dropped into a different container without having to include the 
> dependent Axis2 libraries. Forcing the user to implement the interface 
> will tie the POJO to Axis2. Is there a significant performance gain if 
> an interface is used? How often does the init/destroy method get invoked?

Please explain the difference between "forcing" the user to implement an 
interface, and "forcing" the user to implement a method that uses Axis2 
specific classes as arguments?  AFAICS there is none.  The point is that 
you can't implement "void init(ServiceContext)" without ServiceContext 
anyway, so it's tied to Axis2 anyway.

Note that we're NOT suggesting that you MUST implement ServiceLifecycle 
to be a service implementation, btw!  If you *want* to, it's cleaner 
than implementing random methods which then get searched for with 
introspection.

It's a cleanliness issue, but I'd like to see it fixed.

--Glen

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


Mime
View raw message