[OS-webwork] Is This a Bad Use of IoC?

[Matthew E . Porter]

I think I may be going Inversion of Control mad lately and need some 
help sorting out if what I am doing is just wrong.  I am building a new 
persistence manager where the core manager is based upon hibernate.  
The hibernate manager needs three different providers- one for 
Configuration, one for SessionFactory, and one for Sessions.  Each of 
these providers (Conf, SF, and Session) can have different 
implementations.  For example, the default Session provider always 
returns a new session; however, there is also a ThreadLocal version 
which returns the same session for the entire thread.

The question I have is how do I specify and load these at runtime?  The 
most obvious answer is to have a custom xml file that specifies which 
provider fulfills each role.  I could write (and already have done so) 
a loader to read an XML file and configure the system.  But, instead of 
having this in a separate file, would it be a complete bastardization 
of the intention of IoC (XWork edition) to use it to automatically 
configure the providers?

Why does this seem bad?  Because the primary intention of IoC is to 
wire business components whereas these providers will probably never be 
used outside the real component, the persistence manager.  Instead, it 
seems like I am too lazy to write a loader to configure the system.

Cheers,
  matthew


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork