geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:56:28 GMT

On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 01:06  pm, Alex Blewitt wrote:

> On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 10:56 Europe/London, James Strachan wrote:
>
>> What is the use case for having 'standard' beans separate from 
>> geronimo beans - on't we just need Geronimo beans? i.e. it seems very 
>> complex to have 2 separate trees of standard J2EE descriptors and 
>> another tree of geronimo-extended J2EE descriptor beans. This leads 
>> to a messy dual-inheritence hierarchy that Greg's brought up.
>
> I don't think you need to worry about having two separate trees -- 
> it's called the Bridge pattern. It's what the GUI AWT toolkit uses to 
> present different flavours of widgets depending on OS.
>
> You could set the bridge up so that Geronimo doesn't even have to care 
> about what the types are (and/or generate delegation methods to their 
> normal counterparts). Plus, it could then be extended to deal with 
> other flavours, such as the WebSphere or Weblogic deployment 
> descriptors at the same time.

Whoah. I know about bridges and the like. I'm asking *why* do we have 
to support any other deployment metadata other than Geronimo. e.g. why 
should the Geronimo project ever have to deal with non-Geronimo 
metadata. Lets figure out the use cases first before we dive off coding 
stuff we don't need.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Mime
View raw message