If I understand this thread correctly, you want to replace Avalon with a
custom framework. I think that this is not a good idea. Moving from an
obsolete framework to a custom framework seems like jumping out of the
frying pan and into the fire. I think it would be better to use
something that has traction in the larger Java community, like Guice or
Spring.
Eric MacAdie
Pronounced: muh-KAY-dee
Simon Funnell wrote:
Hi,
By the way, its only 'my' framework by virtue of the fact there is no
'our' to refer to. I could probably refer to it as 'the' framework
with you being able to infer what I am referring to from experience,
but its actually called 'Platformed' and I intend to make it open
source. Also, after some research and reflection, I actually think its
much more suitable (it was designed for this purpose). There is no
escaping some of the differences in approach however. I am quite
willing to invest some time implementing some things which you can
take a look at, it really wouldn't take to long to modify some
existing code. Avalon defines interfaces such as Loggable(?) but there
is no equivalent concept with what I am doing because all things are
inherently loggable, components do have to be built in a way that
enables loggability (and lots of other things) though. It basically
means breaking down some of the existing code into smaller chunks that
can pieced together. These smaller chunks could be recomposed into an
alternative implementation of existing classes and I could also use
these smaller chunks in a different arrangement. As I say, I could
implement an example which would allow people to make an evaluation
about any sort of decision or what not.
I think you might actually like it, it was written a while ago and its
only by looking at it closely again that I remembered how much work I
put into it. My last email didn't accurately reflect the whole
architecture, the micro virtual machines I have touched on are
extensible through 'operations'. Current James classes have methods
such as initialize, service, destroy etc, I would have to replace
these methods with actual classes (which implement an interface called
Operation). Operations are stateless instances that implement
functionality, micro virtual machines provide the operations with a
context upon which to operate. Different micro virtual machines can
have contexts like application/session etc depending on what's
required. If you wanted to log the state of any given machine, at any
stage, you just plug in a logging operation at the necessary place.
This can be done dynamically, like for example an individual client
matching some criteria. The smaller things are, the more reusable they
are. I could very easily create an adapter that takes existing
mailet/matchers and transforms them into Operations for micro virtual
machines processing the spool.
I've probably said too much/too little so I wont post again until I
get some feed back, or have something working, which ever comes first.
I am still interested in producing some documentation as well,
suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
