On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 23:58, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> >> IMHO JAMES specific mailets are an anti-pattern. we need to work >> towards decoupling minimal SPIs for mailets from the large APIs used >> internally by JAMES. i prefer to think about mailet loaders and >> processor assemblers indepedently. avalon is not a good match for this >> problem. more modern IoC containers like pico or spring as *much* >> better. > > +1 > > The underlying question is: What dependencies do mailets need? There > is not a general answer to this question!
+1 > Some mailets need only the mail itself and maybe some abstract > (just-a-name) "target" processor. Some might need access to services > through a generalizable interface, independent of James. Some even > might need James-specific services. > If we provide a solution to the first case, that'd be a pretty big > step forward, already. > The third case we already have solved :-) > The second one is the toughest, because it needs a lot of knowlegde > about how mailets could want to interact with their container. Every > interaction is actually executed by looking up a container service and > making calls to its service interface. So we could work towards a > solution by defining the different dependent services we find in > existing mailets and define interfaces for every one of them. So we > avoid the need for having one swiss knife solution for everything and > concentrate on the different aspects of mailet-container dependency > one-by-one. +1 - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
