Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We have the same problems that we have in Mailets: if you need a service
you have to be Serviceable or to lookup the ServiceManager from the
Context.
Mailets ought to access key services via the MailetContext. That is why we
have MailetConfig and MailetContext, just like the Servlet API. Mailets
were never supposed to deal with Avalon. The few that had to were
aberrations that were supposed to be fixed by improving the Mailet
environment.
I'm not sure I agree with you on this.
James is a container itself and should provide an easy way for people
that want to add new services/components and use this services in the
mailets. The same system should be used by James itself.
I consider the current way to access the ServiceManager via a property
in the context an HACK and we have A LOT of mailets doing this, not FEW.
Imho moving to init is probably a bad move: I prefer to have a clear
dependency on Avalon instead of having an hidden/subtle dependency on
Avalon.
I want NO dependency on Avalon. The handlers should follow the same
pattern. The key services can be exposed by passing in a config from which
we can get to a HandlerContext.
--- Noel
I'm -1 about putting all the services that we have in James inside the
SMTPHandlerSession or put all of the in the context. This would be
really a bad thing to our modularity.
Imho it is really better to depends on Avalon for correct encapsulation
and IoC than spreading services all around because we don't have a
container (or don't want to depend on one).
Maybe I didn't understand your solution, but I think that having the
ServiceManager in the context is not a better solution than adding
Avalon interfaces to that objects! You have the avalon dependency either
way, but if you do that via context you "hide it" and make it more
difficult to manage.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
