geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: [General] Container interface and AbstractContainer
Date Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:06:28 GMT
>> BTW, they really aren't Java interfaces, but rather exposed 
>> management interfaces, which are just naming conventions.
> grumble, grumble, snarl, spit...
> <rant type="stupid specs">
>   Why have a language feature like interfaces if you speicify in all 
> your
>   JSRs that everything has to be done by naming conventions and 
> reflection?!
>   I swear that stupid stuff like _forcing_ a naming convention or 
> _forcing_
>   the use of reflection for a tool to work is IMNSHO a pile of dung!
>   I have been living for quite some time without having to do any of 
> that
>   crap, and I can still get at all my services and components, etc.  
> Not
>   to mention it operates quicker and is easier to manage and maintain.

I think that the creation of some of the key parts as interfaces (e.g. 
Service/ManagedObject/whatever) -- that also follows the naming 
conventions -- can then be made easier to (a) force implementors to use 
those names, and (b) easier to code elsewhere. And it can /also/ be 
managed by the JSRs.

IMNSHO that may give better performance, and we only need to 
externalise the dynamic stuff when external tools talk to Geronimo, not 
for itself internally :-)


View raw message