"Brekke, Jeff" wrote:
>
> [SNIPPED]
> > Most of the initialization work done in the Jetspeed servlet could
> > actually be done by Turbine directly if the daemons, pools, etc...
> > were implemented as TurbineServices. I'm definitely +1 for
> > reimplementing all these packages as Turbine services.
> [SNIPPED]
>
> We should have this reimplemented as turbine services asap. Subclassing the
> turbine servlet is not recommended. There is an entire services/initable
> framework in turbine for accomplishing initialzations.
>
I think it would be a bad design decision.
Reimplementing the Jetspeed servlert init() code as a JetspeedService
would mean both :
- that Jetspeed can be described as a Turbine service, which it can't. it's
a full web application
- that we would have a service which only task is to initialize other
components without providing any access to them, ie a useless service,
a hack.
I think the real fix is to move all the initialized components as real
Turbine services so that Turbine can take care of this initialization
itself and actually use them ! We can then remove the Jetspeed servlet
because it's not required anymore.
I've just committed the first such service (Threadpool) and I'd definitely
like if some other people could step in and move the deamons, etc as services.
BTW, why subclassing Turbine is not recommended ?
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
