On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:20:46AM -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > This would solve 90% of the problems I had with Avalon.
> > I had to create my container implementation because of this,
> > and it was
> > a real PITA.
> >
> > BTW, I regard it as a requirement to be able to do this
> > without having
> > to create my complete version of the
> > container-componentmanager-whateverwecallit.
>
> Understood. The main challenge is what extensions do we
> support. I.E. Marcus had four phases of component use
> when Avalon only ever talks about 3 (init, active,
> destruction).
The phases came from my experiences with Cocoon, and trying to
encapsulate a general solution that included its needs with our own.
IMO the following phases exist:
1. instantiation (bring the component to life)
2. access (get a reference to the component)
3. use the component (call business logic methods)
4. release (release the component back to the CM)
5. destruction (decomission the component).
I separate 1 and 2 because a lookup() doesn't always mean the
creation of a new component. I know client code doesn't generally
differentiate between this, but some of our users already have and
have defined lifecycle stages of this type.
(Cocoon is the example I've been using here with it's
RequestLifecycleComponent interface).
I'd find it useful to be able to tailor a component at lookup() time,
especially in such a request based environment, but perhaps this needs
to be discussed further.
4. is, as discussed previously terminally ill :-)
5. is clear.
Cheers,
Marcus
--
.....
,,$$$$$$$$$, Marcus Crafter
;$' '$$$$: Computer Systems Engineer
$: $$$$: ManageSoft GmbH
$ o_)$$$: 82-84 Mainzer Landstrasse
;$, _/\ &&:' 60327 Frankfurt Germany
' /( &&&
\_&&&&'
&&&&.
&&&&&&&:
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
