Afkham Azeez wrote:
Forcing people to implement an interface might not be liked by some people. One thing ppl do not like about EJBs is that it forces you to implement interfaces. In the simplest scenario, a user can have a POJO, drop this into Axis2 and expose it as a service, also the same POJO may be dropped into a different container without having to include the dependent Axis2 libraries. Forcing the user to implement the interface will tie the POJO to Axis2. Is there a significant performance gain if an interface is used? How often does the init/destroy method get invoked?
Please explain the difference between "forcing" the user to implement an interface, and "forcing" the user to implement a method that uses Axis2 specific classes as arguments? AFAICS there is none. The point is that you can't implement "void init(ServiceContext)" without ServiceContext anyway, so it's tied to Axis2 anyway.
Note that we're NOT suggesting that you MUST implement ServiceLifecycle to be a service implementation, btw! If you *want* to, it's cleaner than implementing random methods which then get searched for with introspection.
It's a cleanliness issue, but I'd like to see it fixed. --Glen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
