Mailing-List: contact synapse-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: synapse-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pzfreo@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.235 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=B/cq9sv7GR4WAH7ktwj98gT1lEOw7irhb0Ve+ALzbyiQ9QcbcqZqq4V71jxlJtoD5wMRLkzsXmCvKJhnbIaR2sHU+1/y1CkjLy85Rx8A8woyz3Kw4H7qthrP8o0sqrnX1gGv4i8pba5lWlQxaCCZTlUUp9aepkk6pVS5W6CgwG8=
Message-ID: <88f5d710708020821qd0329e1l50bc311a93d511de@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:21:56 +0100
From: "Paul Fremantle" <pzfreo@gmail.com>
To: synapse-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2SE JAR file code and Factories
In-Reply-To: <46B1D2DF.7000601@thoughtcraft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <88f5d710707310947o14c09ba7of90cce7e0ed7606f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46B1D2DF.7000601@thoughtcraft.com>

+1 from me. I think it would be a bit easier to keep track of, and
we'd end up with one set of code, not three. Let me take a look at
implementing this.

Paul

On 8/2/07, Glen Daniels <glen@thoughtcraft.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul:
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > Since I added the Startup model we now have 4 different uses of the
> > J2SE ServiceProvider code.
> >  [...]
> > However, I'm also wondering if there is a way we can simplify all
> > these examples into one. Obviously if we had Java1.5 we could use
> > Generics for this, but we dont!
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> One idea would be to use a single "Provider" marker interface for any
> class that's a Synapse plugin of any kind.  Then your
> Service.providers() call looks up that interface, and all we do when we
> find one is ensure that the class is loaded (this may already happen
> inside sun.misc.Service in fact, I'm not sure).  Then you leave it up to
> each plugin to handle registration by doing something like:
>
> class MyMediator implements Mediator, Provider {
>    static {
>      MediatorFactory.register(MyMediator.class);
>    }
> }
>
> Pro: unifies interface, simplifies our code, static initializers don't
> strictly require service provider pattern.
>
> Con: requires plugin authors to call the correct registration API.
>
> I don't know if this kind of approach is worth it, but it did pop to mind.
>
> Thanks,
> --Glen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: synapse-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: synapse-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: synapse-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: synapse-dev-help@ws.apache.org