I think this is a great idea!!. I recently saw a post where somebody was
asking about how to add a resource at runtime. This idea of a RESTful JNDI
would allow us to do something like
com.companyA.DataResource dataSource = new com.companyA.DataResource();
dataSource.id = "DataSource";
dataSource.jdbcUrl = "jdbc:derby://localhost/xyz";
...
...
context.bind("custom/resource/myDataSource",dataSource);
And some other user might be able to do something like:-
com.companyB.Resource res = new com.companyB.Resource();
res.id = "DataSource";
res.jdbcUrl = "jdbc:derby://localhost/xyz";
...
...
context.bind("custom/resource/myDS",res);
Point is, if users could create classes which contained public fields (or
properties) which had standard names (same as the properties used in the
Resource element), then they do not need the openejb api to create a
resource at runtime.
I think this thing can grow to something really really powerful.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> This idea just popped into my head and I'm interested in thoughts.
>>
>> So I've been racking my brain all throughout the 3.x cycle on a possible
>> good way to get an injection service of some kind into the mix. Something
>> that would allow you to annotate a test case for example and say "inject
>> me". Same would go for a standalone app client or any object really.
>>
>> We could of course make a class for this say InjectionManager.class with a
>> method "public void inject(Object o)" but who wants to bind themselves
>> directly to org.apache.openejb.* classes -- I wouldn't. Then suddenly this
>> came to me....
>>
>> The javax.naming.Context.bind(*) methods are off limits anyway for
>> EJB-land, they don't do anything... So... what if we started co-opting it
>> for our own evil purposes :) We could start designating special names that
>> if you "bind" to them will perform specific operations.
>>
>> Say for example:
>>
>> context.bind("<some-standard-prefix>/inject", myObject);
>>
>> We'd take the myObject, scrape the annotations and inject everything we
>> could into the myObject instance.
>>
>>
> Possibly going totally off into crazy-land, we could expose other apis in
> this JNDI-RESTful way.
>
> context.bind("<some-standard-prefix>/deploy", myFile);
> context.bind("<some-standard-prefix>/undeploy", myFile);
>
> If we ever get support for manipulating containers or resources at runtime,
> we could even do:
>
> context.bind("<some-standard-prefix>/system/<id>.<property>", <value>);
>
> As in:
>
> context.bind("<some-standard-prefix>/system/myContainer.PoolSize", 100);
>
> ---
>
> We could also support querying in this sort of JNDI-RESTful way. Say for
> example:
>
> Integer poolSize = (Integer)
> context.lookup("<some-standard-prefix>/system/myContainer.PoolSize");
>
> ---
>
> Certainly, interesting.
>
> -David
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
