I am not sure if I need lifecycle extensions as such. Block and its security interceptor are tightly coupled but managed as two separate units. This could be a problem but might as well be ok -- I did not think much about it yet. Anyways, I'll keep extensions in mind.
Btw, can I implement watchdog service using these lifecycle extensions? Watchdog => periodically checks if a block is alive and if it is not executes some recovery procedure. Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > Igor Fedorenko wrote: > >> Ok, I will post a patch for cvs HEAD later this coming week. >> >> Btw, this stuff needs a little bit more from interceptor support then I >> originally thought. Specifically jaas interceptor must access BlockInfo >> somehow my guess through "Contextualizable" interface. It also needs to >> be Initializable/Startable. In other words, interceptors need lifecycle >> support as any other block (interceptor's lifecycle is couple with >> lifecycle of its block, so implementation might get tricky). Should I >> resubmit "interceptor patch" with this added functionality or should I >> wait for you to check interceptor support in and extend it after that? > > > You may want to take a look at the lifecycle extensions work that has > been completed between the Merlin and Fortress projects. The Merlin > implementation provides complete support for the establishment of > extensions that are themselves components and as such receive full > lifecycle handling prior to their application towards a component (block). > > http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/container/extension.html > > Cheers, Steve. > -- Igor Fedorenko Think smart. Think automated. Think Dynamics. www.thinkdynamics.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
