How are you providing access to components/services?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Turbine, Fulcrum, and Avalon
> 
> 
> One other thing.  Everyone is in for a rude awakening on how much 
> Fulcrum depends of TurbineServices and TurbineXXX being around.
> 
> For example, the Group class in Intake:
> 
>       TurbineIntake.getGroup(name).init(oids[i], pp)
> 
> or the Intake class itself:
> 
>       String inputKey = TurbineIntake.getGroupKey(groupName)
> 
> or DefaultParameterParser:
> 
>       ArrayList items = TurbineUpload.parseRequest(req);
> 
> or TurbineAccessControlList:
> 
>       return getRoles(TurbineSecurity.getGlobalGroup());
> 
> hopefully you get the idea.
> 
> - Dan
> 
> Dan Diephouse wrote:
> > Quinton et al,
> > 
> > I've already started the avalonization.  I'm converting the rest of 
> > the
> > services and doing away with TurbineServices.  I'm like 
> 30-40% done.  I 
> > need to still write tests to test all the components and finish 
> > converting a component or two.  It should be done in a few 
> days.  I need 
> > to be able to use it in other containers besides ECM (ie: 
> Plexus which 
> > Jason is working on) along side my own components.
> > 
> > For the moment I'm using a seperate Torque properties file until the
> > Torque people get their thing going with avalon's 
> configuration or some 
> > other solution is worked out.  However, the rest of the 
> properties are 
> > going to be in the XML file.  A properties to XML converter 
> needs to be 
> > written yet.  Maybe someone could start?  I won't get 
> around to it for a 
> > couple days.
> > 
> > - Dan
> > 
> > Quinton McCombs wrote:
> > 
> >> I would like to propose that we drop stop using the 
> strutum lifecyle 
> >> interfaces altogether in favor of Avalon's interfaces.  Right now 
> >> Turbine only using the component loader (Stratum based) 
> for loading 
> >> Torque and Fulcrum.  To replace this, we should use ECM 
> for loading 
> >> of Torque and Fulcrum.
> >>
> >> Torque would need to implement Avalon's lifecycle 
> interfaces instead 
> >> of Stratum's.  A separate message was just posted to the 
> torque-dev 
> >> about this.
> >>
> >> Turbine's core services could also be loaded as components.  This 
> >> would virtually do away with the current service loading 
> scheme.  All 
> >> of the current logic in TurbineServices (and all related service 
> >> management
> >> code) would be handled by ECM (Avalon's component manager).
> >>
> >> Fulcrum currently has it's own ECM that is used load load it's 
> >> services. This can still remain in place.  When a service 
> is loaded 
> >> from within Turbine, the request would go to Turbine's instance of 
> >> the ECM.  If there is no component loaded with Turbine's ECM that 
> >> matched the role, the request would be passed to Fulcrum's ECM.
> >>
> >> I think that this can be done without affecting the way 
> that services 
> >> are used within Turbine.  We can still keep the abstract 
> classes with 
> >> static methods that we have in place right now.  They will simply 
> >> pass the request to obtain a reference to the service to Turbine's 
> >> ECM. Since all of our current services are thread safe, 
> there is no 
> >> need to pass the component back to the ECM after each use.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The next issue is that of logging.  Although ECM 4.1 will not make 
> >> use of log4j, the latest development version does appear 
> to do so.  I 
> >> have played around with this a little but I don't have 
> that working yet.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:turbine-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to