At 08:42 16/4/01 +0200, 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.
This is very similar to Avalons Framework part .... (pushing for a beta
release by the end of month - yea).
>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, ...)
Similar to Avalons Cornerstone (kernel level services) + recently proposed
*Excalibur* (Non-kernel components).
>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.
Very similar to Avalon/Framework. It actually uses terminology similar to
the recently proposed Services JSR from HP.
>Q1 - Is there any framework that already does this in the jakarta land ?
avalon/Framework ;)
>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.
agreed.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
