Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> I have developed for my own needs a simple Service Framework that I reused
> over and over on all my projects. It is completely generic and does not
> depend on any technology (EJB, Servlets, ...). There is a Service manager
> that handles :
> - services initializations with handling of dependencies and version
> checking,
> - service shutdown
> - retrieval of service by name
> - possibility to define in a fine grain fashion which services to use for a
> given application
> There also some interfaces like a Service interface for implementing a
> service and a Reconfigurable interface that services that can be
> reconfigured at runtime should implement. This is what I call the core.
>
> Then I have some standard services :
> - logging (a wrapper around Log4j),
> - configuration : it is a service that reads properties file with the
> advantage of being able to read properties files located in other jars and
> it is reconfigurable
> - XML mapping (a wrapper around Castor XML),
> - JNDI Wrapper (a simple wrapper around standard JNDI calls)
> - JDBC Wrapper (a simple wrapper around standard JDBC calls - quite useful
> for example for not forgetting to close a JDBC connection, ...)
>
> I also have a few more "exotic" services :
> - Tibco wrapper : for sending a TIBCO message
> - ...
>
> So it is not really a component. It looks a bit like Avalon I think but I am
> not sure. What I like is that it is really generic and not tied to any
> context (Servlet, ...). If you look at Turbine for example, it provides some
> of these services but it is tied to the Servlet context. For Avalon, I am
> not sure.
In Turbine we are moving toward getting rid of this dependency. There
is still a lot of work to be done but I think it will happen eventually.
We have a plan in the turbine 2.2 proposal to get rid of application
specific dependencies that doesn't look like it will be too hard
to implement.
But I would love to see the code for your framework, can you put it in
the sandbox?
>
> Q1 - Is there any framework that already does this in the jakarta land ?
Avalon is doing it, and Turbine to a large extent. Right now in Turbine
there
are some ties to the servlet environment but I don't think it will be
hard to break.
> Q2 - Is there any need for this kind of lightweight framework ? What I liked
> is that when you use a raw framework like Log4j or another, you actually
> have quite a lot of ways to use it : several ways to do intialization
> several ways to define what a category is, ... So there is a cost associated
> with using a "raw" framework. This service framework lowersa bit this cost
> and provides a consistency in using services.
>
> Thanks.
> Vincent Massol.
>
> FYI, some of my workmates are actually porting this framework to opensource
> on SourceForge. The name is Babel and URL is :
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/babel (there isn't much currently but the
> port will be finished within a month).
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://tambora.zenplex.org
