Paul Hammant wrote:
> Static is the killer. I guess only beginners make that mistake. No
> singletons needed for Avalon/phoenix.
Can you elaborate a little? In the Juggernaut framework (which I
designed about 4-5 years ago) there is a single static instance of a
kernel just by virtue of the VM only creating one in the main method,
but the reference to the kernel is passed down to all child components
in the object graph that support a kernel-accessible interface. Is the
top-level object graph only available in Avalon/Phoenix via static
methods?
> >My one concern is the configuration system. Avalon's configuration
> Yes, it's read only. One day it will be updatable. For now, perhaps
> seperate logically into your own interal services (and one or more
> blocks that deliver than service). What you could do in one
> DbXmlConfiguration service (and it's DefaultDbXmlConfiguration block) is
> copy stuff from the read only Configuration (from assembly.xml) and
> write immediately to the persistence store. Charles' SimpleServer demo
> uses the persistence store. When the writable configuration arrives,
> you could change (hopefully) the block only. You et the functioanly you
> require immediately though.
Worse case, we can use our existing configuration framework, which is
almost identical to the Avalon framework (interface-wise) except that it
supports writing and is implemented using concrete classes layered on
top of a DOM.
> >Also, is Tomcat 4 running on top of Avalon? I had heard rumblings to
> Not yet. Marketing campaign to begin soon....
Cool. We plan on replacing our own HTTPServer with Tomcat when it's
time to do so.
> Welcome aboard, by the way.
Thanks,
Tom
--
Tom Bradford The dbXML Group, L.L.C. http://www.dbxmlgroup.com/
Desktop, Laptop, Settop, Palmtop. Can your XML database do that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
