I agree with everything you've written. It seems to me that while there is a theoretical benefit to having the engine and RI separated, it doesn't see much practical use.
The end result of this patch is that I can configure the Engine to use the connectors I want via Spring without using the auto-discovery process. Kevin On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Jerome Louvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for suggestion. For tracking purpose, here is the link to the RFE > you created with your patch: > > "Add SpringEngine" > http://restlet.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=620 > > In fact, the current plan for Restlet 1.2 is to move the > "com.noelios.restlet.*" packages into "org.restlet.engine.*". This would > allow us to package the Restlet Engine together with the Restlet API, into a > single "org.restlet.jar" file. This would also ensure that the engine > classes would receive the same level of backward compatibility support than > the API classes. > > As a benefit, it would encourage people to build more extensions/connectors > for Restlet as their code wouldn't depend on what currently looks like one > specific implementation of the API (com.noelios.restlet.*). This would also > allow us to simplify the code by removing the *Helper classes. Of course > this would complicate the creation of alternative implementations of the > API. > > We would then also remove the engine automatic discovery mechanism as it > wouldn't bring value anymore. We would of course keep the mechanism for > connector and authenticator pluggability. Maybe we would remove the Engine > class itself and replace it with a new Registry for connectors. > > I'm not fully sure how that would impact your idea yet. What do you want to > be able to configure via Spring in the end? Is it just the client and server > connectors to use? > > Best regards, > Jérôme Louvel > -- > Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ http://www.restlet.org > Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ http://www.noelios.com > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Kevin Conaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Envoyé :* mercredi 15 octobre 2008 18:44 > *À :* [email protected] > *Objet :* Spring Engine > > What are folks thoughts on adding a SpringEngine class to the Spring > extension? > > This class would be a helper for configuring an Engine instance. Right > now, the noelios Engine doesn't expose some of the necessary properties > through setters (registeredClients, registeredServers etc) and you must call > a static instance method to set the default Engine. > > All of that could be done through Spring factory beans but I think having a > helper class in the Spring module would make things cleaner. > > We could also add appropriate setters where necessary to the Engine itself > but that class is already quite big. > > Kevin >
