This makes perfect sense to me. This is how I thought it should have been from the start.
I started working with service lifecycle from the start and initially all that was available was init() and destroy(). If there had been a lifecycle interface that I was required to implement, when things changed to init(ServiceContext), destroy(ServiceContext), and setOperationContext(OperationContext), I would have been warned about it at compile time and not wondering why my old init() code wasn't being called at runtime. -Tony -----Original Message----- From: Eran Chinthaka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 8:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: AW: How to access the SOAPHeader Rodrigo Ruiz wrote: > Mmm, yes of course. But I guess you are talking about a mandatory > interface, like Remote. I am talking about an optional one, like > LifeCycle. For example: > > public interface ContextAware { > void setOperationContext(OperationContext ctx); } > > In this case, only those services interested in having this data will > need to implement it. The rest can work just like now. > > Such an interface would make reflection/introspection unnecessary, and > the relationship with Axis2 more explicit. Hmm, now it makes sense to me :). I can remember there was a discussion on the same topic some time back, on this list, but can not remember what happened to it. What do the others think about this? Can I implement this? For the time being, lets leave the dependency injection for the existing code to work and implement this as well. Comments ? -- Chinthaka --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
