Takuya,
An initialize Server Startup mechanism is cool and useful idea that shouldn't be too hard to implement. However, I'm wondering why you really need it. Can you provide a little more details about why you think it is needed and why static initialization is not adequate. Some code fragments would also help explain the situation.
thanks, aaron
At 10:32 PM 4/20/2005, you wrote:
Hi Philip, and hacky hackers.
I am wondering if I or someone can implement the startup interface to initialize something at the server startup.
Basically what I want to do is to instatiate ReviewIdGroup manager singleton which sets reviewId and Reviewgroup listeners.
Current solution to be able to achieve this is
1) add this in the org.hackystat.kernel.ServerStartup class
2) add this in a class which is instantiated and called in a requestHook (e.g. in some selector classses)
However, since the sensor data listener should be added before any requestHook was called, all I can do is to add my code to the ServerStartup class (1).
The 1) would be problem because it's coupled and hackyKernel can not be complied without my module.
To avoid this, I would like to create hackystat early startup framework to startup the implementing class which might be defined in xml file and instantiated as reflection.
The interface could be something like
public Interface HackyStartup {
public earlyStartup();
If we implemnt this the following lines in the org.hackystat.kernel.ServerStartup would be gone and less decoupled.
xml file would be
<earlyStartup class="org.hackystat.app.review.StartupImpl"> <require class="org.hackystat.kernel.StartupImpl"> <!-- optional --> <require class="org.hackystat.stdext.StartupImpl"> <!-- optional --> </earyStartup>
What do you think?
takuya
================================ Takuya Yamashita E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================
