Leandro Rodrigo Saad Cruz wrote:
One container is bad. The user specifies the container to load the components. Fulcrum is a component repository and not a container provider. This is especially important because the container situation is always going to be changing. What happens when the new Avalon 5 container comes out? What about Plexus?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.Why not use only one container ?
Definitely. See my other message regarding this. Although, I've come to the conclusion that the security service needs to be totally rewritten. It uses TurbineSecurity.getXXX() everywhere. This is horrible component design.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.I think this static accessor should be dropped ! We should use component composition instead !
- Dan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
