On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > As all of you who carefully read commit-messages may have seen (:-), > yesterday I committed the ability to call > Conversation.bind(instance) > so that later calls to any method on that instance will run within the > context of the specified conversation (including its associated persistence > context if any) [1]. > > This is useful functionality and I don't think anyone will object. There is > one question about the actual implementation, though, that I thought people > might have an opinion on. > > The current approach adds interface ConversationBinder, and a setter method > has been added to the Conversation class. Each dependency-injection-specific > layer then provides a different implementation of this (eg > SpringConversationBinder) when creating Conversation instances. > > An alternative would be for each dependency-framework to instead return a > subclass of Conversation, then the binder interface would not be needed. > This approach would potentially be more extensible in future (any future new > features requiring tight couplings between conversation and > dependency-injection-framework can just be added transparently without new > interfaces) but would make the Conversation class a little harder to > understand IMO.
from what I read, I think I like this second option more, since it promises a better, more extensible, approach. > > Both seem reasonable to me; anyone got arguments about preferring one over > the other? Or any other issues about those patches in general? > > [1] Mario came up with this idea, and did an initial prototype. Mario, we miss you! -Matthias > > Regards, > Smion > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
