On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:24:55 +0900, Shinobu Kawai Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Claude, > > > I take profit of this mail to let us speak a bit about tools (more for > > devs).
:) > Then let's take it to the dev list. :) > > > We spoke before about tools pooling (especially Nathan iirc): how can it > > be implemented? Using a Reusable interface with a reinit(initdata) > > method? i actually have a very lightly tested implementation of this (i named the interface Poolable). there are a few hang ups though. (see below) > Made me wonder, how many people actually needs this feature? On what > occasions would they use it? i'm really not sure how many people would use and/or want this feature. but the use case would probably be session or request scoped tools with sizable instantiation costs. granted, there are ways to deal with that now, but i don't think it would hurt to have more options. :) however, as i said, there are a few hang ups... 1) the current structure and placement of classes in the generic/view/struts categories prevents this (and Configurable) from being available to generic tools. the necessary reorganization is enough to make the effort for backwards compatibility undesirable. so the local branch of mine with all these changes would probably require a major version number jump and a new branch in SVN. we may be ready to go there, we may not, i dunno, something to talk about, i guess. 2) this experimental pooling code is a bit out of date. i did all this before the switch to Subversion and it's lack recent updates made to the main branch. it'd take some work to bring it up to date. and 3) i really would need a number of full days spent on veltools to be able to get a release of our current code base out and/or get all this stuff ready and tested better myself. 4) part of me would rather spend time working on current bugs or trying out/considering recent contributions sitting in the wiki than do the above so here's a few related questions... anyone thinking we should put a 1.2 out soon? what bugs should we squish for that? are there any recent contributions many people would like to see get in before 1.2 is released? is VelocityStruts up to date with Struts 1.2.x? i've been pretty out of touch with that part of the code lately. is anyone else interested in tool pooling? yes/no/why/why-not? would anyone else want to work on a 2.0 branch? i have a bunch of experimental stuff i was playing with locally a few months ago (pooling, pluggable toolbox loader, moving basic tool management to generic level, etc). it's a bit out of date, but i might be up for the work if i had some assurance of interest and assistance. i'm just trying to get a feel for where people are at here. > > And a suggestion on the same subject: > > > > Maybe we could have the syntax of the scope element be: > > application | session | request | <url regexp> > > in toolbox.xml to refine scopes at a thiner level than the request > > scope. > > Sorry, but I'm not quite getting it. How would one use it? The <url > regexp>, I mean. yeah, i'm not sure on this either. i don't see how you could have or would want a small scope than "request" when working with servlets. if anything, i think it could be interesting to have a scope larger than request and smaller than a session. that could be some sort of keyed thing where tools would be shared amongst a group of requests bearing the same key. in between the requests the tools could sit in the session under the given key(s). i've half-toyed with the idea before, but personally had no real use case for this. nathan > Best regards, > -- Shinobu > > -- > Shinobu "Kawai" Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
