On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I had an IRC chat with Jeremy on this topic, please see the
transcript attached below.
Here's a summary.
1) SCDL extensions (maybe vendor-specific) can contribute extra
context (for example, SDO TypeHelper) to Tuscany runtime components.
O.K. now I understand what you are trying to do. This is fine as long
as it's not abused. In other words, the type of things that should be
stored here relate specifically to the runtime component and are not
things that should be system services.
2) We only support a fixed type of builders today and it should be
generized to support other types
3) A 2-step delegation can be applied.
Deployer -->
Builder -->
Generic Component Builder (keyed by
ComponentDefinition.class) ---> ComponentBuilder keyed by
Implementation classes
Generic Service Builder (keyed by
BoundServiceDefinition.class) --> BindingLoader keyed by Binding
classes (Which can in turn support multiple bindings)
Generic Reference Builder (keyed by
BoundReferenceDefinition.class) --> BindingLoader keyed by Binding
classes (Which can in turn support multiple bindings)
...
MyExtension Builder (keyed by MyExtensionDefinition.class)
Do you think it is better to key things off the "definition" class or
just run through all of the extension builders and have them decide
if they want to process something or not (or the registry could
automate the decision). Doing this would allow for multiple builders
to decorate a runtime component.
Jim
Thanks,
Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
