Re: Spring support enhancement...

[Asankha C. Perera]

Sanjiva One reason I thought of keeping things separate is that most of the time users may want to have an endpoint named "mywebservice" and maybe also a sequence with the same name "mywebservice" just since it seems easier in a usability point of view, so that it implicitly ties different items together. If we kept everything together, we will need to use unique names for the above scenario, as well as cast back objects by first checking which type of objects they are when you do a getProperty() etc. asankha Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 15:56 +0530, Asankha C. Perera wrote: Paul To do this without making the Synapse core (i.e. SynapseConfiguration) dependent on Spring classes, we could keep the reference to the ApplicationContext as just an Object? Maybe the approach should be to make the Spring configuration definitions "named" (as other elements within the "definitions" section), and keep these named "configuration"s as a Map of Objects.. just thinking out aloud. .maybe something like... SynapseConfiguration will keep a Map of named "configuration" Objects, and expose methods Object getNamedConfiguration(String configName) void addNamedConfiguration(String configName, Object config) Do we need such a glorified interface or can we just have: Object getProperty (String) void setProperty (String, Object) We're quite used to having this concept around everywhere ;-). Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]