Giacomo Pati wrote: > > > We extend the ECM with our CocoonComponentManager, you can have a look > > at that class. All the features (hacks?) in there have to be somehow > > available using fortress, merlin or whatever. > > We have another lifecycle type, the request lifecycle component. This is > > an extension to poolable and means that per request only one instance > > of this component is used. So if two other components lookup this > > request lifecycle component, they get the same instance. > > The implementation of this extension is a little bit difficult as we > > have sub requests that run in the same thread but have a different > > set of request lifecycle components. > > In addition it's possible to process on request multi threaded which > > makes this even more difficult. > > IIRC Fortress can handle this with a special Handler we have to supply > (instead of subclassing the hole Container class). Remeber that in > Fortress Object handling is separated into meta data instead of > additional marker interfaces. There is no Poolable, ThreadSafe, etc. any > more but ThreadSafeComponentHandler, PoolableComponentHandler instead. > Yes, I know - and I saw the handlers of fortress and it should work.
> > There are some other important extensions like the environment handling > > for the source resolver and the sitemap configurable components. They > > use more or less the same technique used for the request lifecycle > > components. > > I'm sure there is a way for this also and with the help of a Handler it > can be made with IOC in mind. I'm not sure for the source resolver part. The other things should work, yes. > > Yes, but the world is still spinning and there are alot of other > Component out there that don't follow the ECM style because it's > deprecaded for long time now and every time we want to use such a > component we have to extend the working interface to make it a > 'Component' for ECM and extend the implementation to have our interface > implemented (do you remember the Cornerstone Scheduler?). That's ugly! > Definitly. Ok, that's a point. > As a side note: I got the impression (and that supprises me alot) there > is too little knowledge around here what Avalon is doing and where it is > moving in the so central Component Container discipline. This IMHO led > to this 'we think Avalon cannot supply what we want' situation and so we > are ignoring the helping hand Avalon people put forth several times now. > At least for me it's not the 'we think Avalon cannot supply what we want' that I fear of. It's more a "can the Avalon community support the version for us and for how long". Carsten
