Hi,
while looking for alternate ways to implement the Security framework in
Merlin, I took a peek at the LifeCycle extensions.
I am a bit hesitant to the current design.
public interface Creator
{
void create( Object object, Context context )
throws Exception;
void destroy( Object object, Context context );
}
and
public interface Accessor
{
void access( Object object, Context context )
throws Exception;
void release( Object object, Context context );
}
Shouldn't the create() and the access() methods return Object, which much be
an object of the same type as the parameter object?
By doing that, it is possible to wrap any component with an pluggable
interceptor mechanism. As it is now, that is not possible. Or am I supposed
to do something like that elsewhere?
Furthermore, why does the component need to declare/associate the stage in its
type declaration? It is not done for Serviceable?
IMVHO, Life Cycle extensions are "Installed" into the container, and for each
component the container checks if it implements the Extension interface, if
so service it.
An ideal LifeCycle extension system, would allow us to break out all the
existing stages, and configure them via the extension mechanism. Wouldn't
that be the ultimate goal? That is at the moment not possible, as I can't
specify the stage order for construction.
Just some thoughts about the subject...
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
