Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81028 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 18:29:36 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 18:29:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 5438 invoked by uid 500); 4 Mar 2004 18:29:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 5357 invoked by uid 500); 4 Mar 2004 18:29:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 5340 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 18:29:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.198.39) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 18:29:24 -0000 Received: from comcast.net (h-68-164-32-243.nycmny83.covad.net[68.164.32.243]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004030418285201500qt807e> (Authid: hkrishnaswamy); Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:28:52 +0000 Message-ID: <4047755A.1020107@comcast.net> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:28:42 -0500 From: Harish Krishnaswamy User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [HiveMind] HiveMind ideas - interceptor categories References: <024f01c40148$3beae760$6401a8c0@ALMIGHTYBEAST> <404636DC.4060209@comcast.net> <4046CEDC.40205@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N The default ordering will certainly be good but any other level of abstractions for the ordering seems like unnecessary complications of what is supposed to be a simple thing. May be I am missing something here? -Harish Christian Essl wrote: > Hi Harish, > > My ordering suggestion was not a genius one, it should just make the > current ordering a bit easier to use. I just thought if you had some > standard-ordering numbers this would be enough for 80 % of the cases. > The order-attribute would take for such standard numbers a string - > like a constant. If this was not enough you could always assign an > explicite number. > > Also for easier usage an interceptor-factory should (optional) give > its default order number. Ie the logging-interceptor is by default on > 500 a security interceptor on 10000. > > Thanks, > Christian > > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:38:20 -0500, Harish Krishnaswamy > wrote: > >> Hi Christian, >> >> Welcome back! >> >> I know you have done some work on dynamic proxy interceptors before, >> I shall take a look at it and see if it helps. >> >> As far as interceptor ordering, I really don't see the benefit. Could >> you be more elaborate? >> >> -Harish >> >> PS. I am going to bed now, don't expect an immediate response ;) >> >> Christian Essl wrote: >> >>> Hallo, >>> Congratulations that Hivemind is back. Sorry that I haven't mailed >>> before, but I was very busy and wasn't checking for HiveMind that >>> often anymore. Especially I want to apologize with Howard, whoes >>> mail I must have overseen. >>> >>>>>> - Why use Javassist instead of dynamic proxies? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I am yet to explore Javassist, but would certainly like to see some >>>> comments comparing it to Cglib2. I have seen some great reviews for >>>> it and not to mention its widespread use in other products. >>> >>> >>> >>> In most cases I'm not a big fan of JavaAssist interceptors too. >>> Furtunately HiveMind is very flexible. There is nothing which >>> prevents an InterceptorFactory to return a dynamic-proxy, >>> cglib-proxy etc. Maybe this could be better documented. However if >>> you use this aproach you have the full dyna-proxy overhead for each >>> interceptor. Therefore other aop-frameworks (Nanning, Dynaop, Spring >>> - all use cglib) use interceptor chains. And of course this >>> frameworks bring other stuff as well. >>> >>> So what I imagine is an interceptor-factory which uses one of this >>> aop-frameworks (my favorite would be dynaop) and is itself >>> configured by a config-point. This would than be quite easy to use >>> and would give HiveMind state-of-the-art AOP for nearly nothing. >>> Such an aproach would also make HiveMind more ready to use normal >>> Beans. >>> >>> Interceptor-ordering: >>> Maybe a quick help would be to make the ordering-categories more >>> explicit in the xml-config. So that you could use something like >>> this: . Maybe the >>> ServiceInterceptorFactories could even provide a default-value. >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org