On May 27, 2013, at 103PM, Greg Trasuk wrote: > > Dennis: > > I'll take a fresh look at Rio over the coming week or two. As you know, > I've always held the Rio project in high regard. When I looked at it > some years ago, I felt it was addressing a number of concerns, like QOS > and mobile code, that I didn't have, and hence it seemed complicated for > what I was trying to do. But time marches, on, I suppose. > > I continue to believe that there's room for a plurality of container > concepts. Although it would be great if we could set down a standard > for deployment conventions, much like the way JEE does. I'm of the > opinion that the com.sun.jini.starter convention leaves a little to be > desired. It pretty much assumes that the service is in control of the > VM, rather than embrace container-style inversion of control (a-la > servlets or EJBs).
Sure, no problem. One big thing to consider wrt container IoC, is that the lifecycle of a River service is different then an EJB. With River, a service can join and leave the network (advertised and unadvertised). Making sure that you consider that has been important in my experience. This when tied with how a service deals with other services (what I call associations http://www.rio-project.org/associations.html), can change the lifecycle of a service. So food for thought Regards Dennis
