Hello, Gabriel Sidler wrote: > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > >>>Geir wrote: > >>> > >>>>A great example of application differences are scopes... Darn important > >>>>(sadly) in the servlet environment, but utterly irrelevant in Ant-driven > >>>>tasks. > >>>> > >> > >>Really? Conceptually, aren't there tools that apply to all templates of > >>a batch (global scope) and potentially others that are specific to a > >>particular template of a batch (local scope). > >> > > > > That's really far-fetched :) > > > > Isn't that a misuse of the concept of scope? You are talking more about the > > notion of a pull model, where the template itself decides on which tool to > > use and picks it accordingly out of the context. > > No, I never thought that far. I am simpy thinking from the point of > view of a toolbox manager: When does it need to instantiate a tool? > - once for the entire runtime? (scope global) > - or once for every template processing? (scope local) > - or once for every xyz (scope xyz) > > If 'scope' is not the right term here, let me what would be better.
The concept of "scope" and "contextname" mentioned earlier are really just about the same thing. In a servlet environment, you're limited to using request, session and global. In other environments you could use whatever you wanted. However, ToolboxManager should not use global scope by default when loading a tool (in the servlet environment) because this implies the tool is thread safe. The default should be request. Also, instead of calling it "global", a term which I don't ever recall seeing associated with the ServletContext, maybe the term "application" would be better. -Bill > > Gabe > > -- > Gabriel Sidler > Software Engineer, Eivycom GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
