geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Boynes" <jer...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject RE: [vote]POJO design?
Date Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:56:56 GMT
JNDIEnvironmentRefs was added to allow ComponentContextBuilder to work
with different POJOs representing unrelated objects (EJBs and AppClients
for sure, possibly Servlet's and Filters if needed). It works for either
proposal.

This is a view used during container configuration and is not really
part of the data model. The issue I had with your initial proposal was
that it made the entire spec model abstract which meant that it could
not me used to implement the DDBeans Aaron needs for the deployment
tool.

I might be wrong, but I can't for now think of another view that is
common across several components - maybe JNDIBindable, but if all it is
is the JNDI name then I'm not convinced a separate interface is needed
(this can just be handled by the respective container).

--
Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Greg Wilkins
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:29 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [vote]POJO design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 
> > [-1] Greg's patch: A single tree of standard & geronimo elements
> 
> Well as you are pretty much approved as a committer now - 
> I'll take that as a veto.
> 
> Kind of decides the issue as few others have voted anyway.
> 
> 
> >  - The set of interfaces provided (JNDIEnvironmentRefs, 
> JNDINameable, 
> > and
> > JNDIRef) could be used as is for the other proposal, so there is no
> > advantage granted by just using interfaces.  Would 
> interface supporters
> > cheerfully agree to the other patch if I add the same 3 
> interfaces to it?
> 
> That again would be better.  But my main object remains that 
> it the current dual tree approach has been hand crafted and 
> we are only adding these interfaces where pragmatism dictates.
> 
> Adding these interfaces is just going part way to my initial 
> proposal of having one of the two trees as interfaces so that 
> both hierarchies can be correct.
> 
> So I would say that we should either add ALL interfaces for 
> one of the trees now, or just add them if/when they are 
> needed.  As we are not adding all the interfaces now, then 
> I'd say leave it as is.
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message