On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:16, Paul Hammant wrote: > Nicola, > > > This is how James uses the Context: > > http://jakarta.apache.org/james/mailet/org/apache/mailet/MailetContext.ht > >ml > > > > - What would data-only-usage Context advocates do with it? What problems > > does it pose? > > - Why is this (for method-containing Context advocates) the best > > solution? - Why do I have a Context interface when in fact the Context is > > used even without actually needing the specified method? > > > > If we don't discuss on real code, we won't get anywhere. > > A perfect world (contentious) JAMES would have MailetContext extending > Context and being handed in to a component by Contextualize. This is not > the case now. > > I agree though that it would represent a good real world case if that were > so.
I'm not sure that this is a great example. The MailetContext shares little in common with the Avalon Context, other than a name. It's the way that a MailetContainer (potentially very different from an Avalon Container) provides contextual information to a Mailet, which is a domain-specific component running in a well-defined environment. I'd like to see the base MailetContext stay Avalon-unaware if possible. If it's possible (and we'll be discussing this in the up-and-coming James3 development round), then you may as well be using the ServletContext as a model for your discussions. One possibility (thinking out loud now), is that James could provide 2 set of context to Mailets:- a MailetContext and an AvalonContext. So a mailet writer could choose to be Mailet-container-agnostic and only use the Avalon-unaware MailetContext, but they could also choose to implement Contextualizable and get the full power of Avalon and all the services provided. In the latter case, however, they wouldn't be able to run on the rival MailetContainer secretly being developed by the JBoss team :). -- cheers, Darrell DeBoer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
