cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <>
Subject Re: [Corona] Pipeline API
Date Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:44:27 GMT
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> Torsten Curdt <tcurdt <at>> writes:
>> The question if those configuration are needed in a generic form in  
>> the API. (I doubt it) As I would expect them to be implementation  
>> specific a configuration callback that sets up the pipeline might be a  
>> way around this?
> I guess we are on the same position on this one, setup and clean up are usually
> implementation specific and should therefore not be part of the API. Even for
> the finish() method it might be necessary to pass a context or parameters.
> Already passing it in setup() might be an option, but then you force the
> component to have special handling for thread-safety.
> Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler <at>> writes:
>> I added now a finish method which is called by the pipeline implementation.
>> This keeps me free from any configuration hassels with the various 
>> containers. Some want to use spring, some others something different.
> But that's exactly what these container are there for.
>> And perhaps someone doesn't want to use a container at all, just 
>> instantiate the objects, run the pipeline and that's it.
> By just instantiating the objects you know exactly with which implementation you
> work - and which setup and finish method you are supposed to call.
>> Therefore I really think that these lifecycle methods belong to the api.
> That's what I don't agree with :-)
>> I see no other reliable way of closing resources.
> A listener/callback approach would be cleaner for the API, but more complex.
> Question is if it needs to be part of the API at all.

Can you provide an example how your ideas would materialize as Java code?

Reinhard Pötz                           Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH

Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member        

View raw message