jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MicroKernel.getInstance
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:55:05 GMT

On 11.4.12 16:36, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Mueller<mueller@adobe.com>  wrote:
>>>> Do you think this is not needed?
>>> Exactly.
>> So, it is not needed?
>>> Only the code that creates the MicroKernel instance should ever call
>>> dispose()
>> So, it is needed?
>> Sorry I don't understand.
> AFAICT all cases where we actually need to start up MicroKernel
> instances (instead of just accessing one) already know which
> implementation class to construct and how to dispose it once no longer
> needed. Thus I don't see the need for a generic interface for either
> starting up or disposing MicroKernels.

Not sure whether this really is the case. However the number of 
different Microkernel implementations is definitely low and the current 
way of acquiring them via the MicroKernelFactory seems over engineered.

I suggest to remove the MicroKernelFactory and use standard constructor 
calls as you proposed for now. Further down the line we should probably 
rethink the issue of modularisation, dependency injection and 
configuration within a broader scope anyway which might make this issue 
obsolete. See also OAK-17.


> Do you know of cases where we would need such a generic interface? The
> only case I know of is the MultiMkTestBase class, which I think is
> better handled with the new MicroKernelFixture mechanism in oak-it-mk.
> BR,
> Jukka Zitting

View raw message