[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POLYGENE-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Paul Merlin updated POLYGENE-129:
---------------------------------
Issue Type: Improvement (was: Bug)
Summary: @PreDestroy and @PostConstruct in lieu of initializable and
service activation with (was: Review the different
activation/initialization/lifecycle methods)
> @PreDestroy and @PostConstruct in lieu of initializable and service
> activation with
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: POLYGENE-129
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POLYGENE-129
> Project: Polygene
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Niclas Hedhman
>
> Kent wrote on mailing list;
> {quote}
> I agree that the mix and match between composites and mixin declarations of
> the same @Activators concept might lead to confusion - not a good idea.
> But a whole new thought .... aren't we reinventing the wheel here.
> We have Initializable interface - declaring a method (on the mixin) invoked
> after construction. We have ServiceActivation - with 2 initialize/destroy
> methods implemented by a mixin - and sort of referenced from the declarations
> on the composites.
> We have @Activators -- that may be declared on the composite - with wide
> flexibility implementation-wise.
> But .... the JDK already has @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy annotations.
> These were originally JEE stuff, but have been in the JDK for several years.
> And it is the same thing! Keeping a special Initializable interface is,
> frankly, a quite dated way of doing stuff.
> I would say we should add support for declaring @PostConstruct and
> @PreDestroy on Mixins - and support for @PostConstruct on plain objects
> (instantiated by ObjectFactory). And simply remove (or just deprecate)
> Initializable and ServiceActivation alltogether.
> I am more uncertain whether the @Activators should be kept or not. On one
> hand I cannot find a single usage in the whole codebase using
> beforeActivation and afterPassivation - so not sure anyone would miss those
> features.
> On the other hand it might be handy to be able to reuse the same activation
> logic across several composites - And there could be some potential of
> reusing the Activator as a listener for UnitOfWork activation/passivation
> instead of module activation/passivation. The afterPassivation could have
> some usages in that context.
> So I think we should keep that concept for now.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
