On Feb 23, 2005, at 3:07 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Feb 23, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
That of course means that someone would have to define their own types, and the latest changes by David Jencks make defining your own types the norm. With his code you no longer declare an entire object name for a gbean. Instead you just define an instance name and type (the type is actually extracted from the GBeanInfo). So we are doing everything possible to encourage the use of the JSR77 name hierarchy, by making it the simplest and most natural configuration style.
But we shouldn't require it for the container. Great for J2EE, but could be utterly useless for someone else.
I hope I did not give the impression that a name format is required; it is just encouraged.
I disagree with the statement that a name hierarchy is useless for anything but J2EE. To the contrary, I believe that it is useful to everyone. Without a well understood hierarchy, a user will be presented with thousands of components with no categorization, and this makes for a pretty unusable system. After discussions with the James team, I am very confident that JSR77 naming rules will map well to their avalon based configs. It should also map well to Pico and Spring. The idea is to encourage use with a bit of sugar by making it the simplest and most powerful way to organize your components.
In the case where, they don't follow the JSR77 rules, the GBean specific console would have to fall back to a default sorting rule. This ugly display in the console would further encourage people to use JSR77 names.
Or they would just fix the console
Exactly. If the categorization rules did not map well to their system, they would write a new sorter plugin and get the display just the way they want it. If you have time, please take a look at the the new configuration stuff David Jencks put in, and I bet you will see how simple it is to use a hierarchy based name system.
-dain
