Hi Kevin, The refactoring seems mostly complete to me. I only expect marginal changes now. There is now a single Engine class with a reduced set of methods, mostly acting as a registry for helpers (connectors, authenticators and converters). Best regards, Jerome Louvel -- Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ <http://www.restlet.org/> http://www.restlet.org Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ <http://www.noelios.com/> http://www.noelios.com
_____ De : Kevin Conaway [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : vendredi 20 février 2009 01:01 À : [email protected] Objet : Re: Spring Engine Hi Jerome, What is the status of the engine refactoring? On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Kevin Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: 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, J�r�me Louvel -- Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ <http://www.restlet.org/> http://www.restlet.org Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ <http://www.noelios.com> http://www.noelios.com _____ De : Kevin Conaway [mailto:[email protected]] Envoy� : mercredi 15 octobre 2008 18:44 � : [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 ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=1245336
