I would say what you need is this: 1) A PersistenceManager component bound into Request scope and provided to components implementing PersistenceAware - this is the main one, and the others are just there to support the Hibernate version of this
2) A SessionFactoryManager component bound into application scope and provided to components implementing SessionFactoryAware -> the HibernatePersistenceManager should implement SessionFactoryAware I'm not sure what you need the Configuration one for.... Are you programmatically changing configuration of Hibernate at runtime? You could do the same with a HibernateConfigurationManager and a *Aware interface that the SessionFactoryManager could implement The components.xml handles all of this for you, right? Why do you need anything else? Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew E. Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [OS-webwork] Is This a Bad Use of IoC? > > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
