marc fleury wrote:
>
> > Because this interceptor is different. It's always there.
>
> so?? have the ContainerFactory inforce the default.. to have the *container
> factory* NOT manufacture the container is ackward , really.. not very
> readable.... honestly as I read I said OK, done with construction and then I
> find this line in between classloader setting and I spend a good 4 minutes
> digging for class dependency in that interceptor and find there is none...
> ackward, really ackward.
>
> > ContainerFactory chooses which interceptors are used, which order and
> > whatnot, but then the Container must be able to add itself as the last
> > component in the chain.
>
> yes, I understand, but why in the container... the ContainerFactory is the
> place to manufacture the container, right?
>
> <simple and readable/>
As I said, no, IMHO the Container should enforce this rule. It's a minor
point as well, since the ContainerInterceptor doesn't actually do that
much.
> > The best way to do that was to let the Container
> > itself do it,
>
> no
>
> > also since it's the only class that has visibility of its
> > Interceptor.
>
> Rickard, wake up, that's backward-looping logic and the reason for my follow
> up mail, "why the protected visibility" in the first place.
>
> Listen, as we go through this excercise, most of the times it is little
> refactoring stuff that I am doing (like right now) the fact is that your
> architecture is real and your have a good head when you have the right
> ideas...
What I could do is add more comments to make it more readable, but I'm
not changing the code.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
