Re: PortletInvokerService is not optional

[Eric Dalquist]

Sounds good to me. Moving the required vs optional distinction to the impl only makes a lot of sense.

-Eric

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

Ate Douma wrote:

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

Hi,

the PortletInvokerService is contained in the optional services section,
however it is not optional. The container implementation gets the
service and directly calls it.
The (default) implementation of this service belongs to the driver.

Actually, hardly any of the services is functionally optional.

The distinction between optional and required (as initially setup by
David DeWolf when he started Pluto 1.1.x) is between those services
which you don't need to provide yourself because the container has (or
better: had) a build-in default implementation, and those which really
are "required" to be provided by the embedding portal as the container
cannot impose a sensible default solution.

Now, with the separation of the container-driver-api and

container-driver impl as you are now performing through PLUTO-492,

It's Pluto-545 :)

this
distinction really gets blurred. Now, "optional" only remains meaningful
when also using the container-driver impl...

Yes.

So, in my view, this "optional/required" distinction is a "feature" of
the container-driver, not the container itself.

Yepp.

In the light of the ongoing PLUTO-492 issue, we could (but I'm not
saying we need) consider dropping this distinction from the container
POV and only use it in and for the container-driver impl.

I think we should really do this; optional doesn't make sense from the
container api pov. If noone objects I'll perform the changes as part of
PLUTO-545.

Carsten

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature