Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>You are telling me that instead of doing
>
> ConnectionPool pool = new ConnectionPool(...);
>
>you like to do
>
> ConnectionPool pool = (ConnectionPool) factory.create("connection
>pool");
>
>
Yuck.
Better:
ConnectionPool pool = (ConnectionPool) factory.create(
ConnectionPool.class );
>Despite the obvious type unfafetyness introduced, admittedly, this is a
>step forward in the control of pooled objects.
>
>
I prefer subclasses. Granted I don't have intimate knowledge of that
code yet, but the above signature
gives me chills.
>Now, you (and Berin) were suggesting that the CM be extended to provide
>a single point of contruction control not only for Avalon components,
>but also for those legacy objects that might request non-simple
>contruction control (such as pooled resources).
>
>I'm still very skeptical this is a good thing to do, it seems to be
>blurrying the component concept way too much.
>
>
I think you're right.
>
>
>>In my CM the "factories" make the bridge between the CM/framework and the
>>components. The "component factories" define:
>> - How a component is obtained;
>> - How it is released;
>> - What is its lifestyle and other "details" that the CM must know.
>>
>>
+1 - which a generic factory can't do.
ConnectionPool = ConnectionPoolFactory.create();
ConnectionPool =
(ConnectionPool)factory.create(ConnectionPoolFactory.getInstance());
I'm of the general opinion that you know your right when you don't have
to cast. (with only a million
exceptions to the rule but as a general principal its sound).
>>No marker interfaces.
>>
>>This makes it MUCH simpler to have a lot of components/parts that are
>>independent from the CM/framework but that can be used by the CM/framework
>>with a minimum of coding.
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm, I have to think about this some more.
>
>
>
-Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
