You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Martin Kersten <ma...@gmail.com> on 2013/10/19 11:21:58 UTC
Why the Registry is not available as a service?
Hi there,
I just wonder why the registry is not available as a service.
Doing all those test writing I got used to handle the Registry directly.
Since the Registry represents the IOC for me, I just wonder why it is ment
to that the registry can not directly be injected (or do I miss something
here).
The only reference I found was that the Registry adds itself to the
SerializationSupport. Which by checking the references looks like a relict
and should be removed from the code. It looks like that tapestry tries to
impose a single tapestry instance per JVM which seams to me like a design
flaw. (If you collect things to change for Tapestry 6 maybe one should add
that multiple instances of tapestry should be possible per JVM so no more
use of static references).
So unitl I missed something, I just wonder why I can not do something like:
ServiceImpl(Registry){...}
I can provide it easily by doing something like:
binder.bind(RegisteryReference.class);
---
registery.getService(RegisteryReference).setRegistery(registry);
And then I inject the reference in my services. The reference uses a weak
link to ease gc on shutdown.
(Or I just bind a registry wrapper that delegates the registry interaction
towards the real registry once it is created).
Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the point
here and its already in place?
Cheers,
Martin (Kersten),
Germany
Re: Why the Registry is not available as a service?
Posted by Martin Kersten <ma...@gmail.com>.
Well I do test driven development. Therefore I am used to express and
program using the registry object. It seams natural and allows even things
like check if a given service is available or not (ok I can use the story
board or check the properties of the service proxy). It just seams natural
now and I like to check for some symbols and alike. Even doing some dynamic
configuration.
At the end I need it to be injected in my test pages first place. I
currently work around this but its not good.
Many tapestry instances would allow me to test the code from the view of
two independent nodes collaborating. Currently the only chance I have is
test this in isolation or start a second JVM (which I am going to do later
in the project). But having a second JVM one can not easily debug two
instances at the same time. So actually it is limiting.
Also another scenario is using embedded tapestry in other servers like
Vertx or even have two distinct tapestry servlets running and alike. Its
just a unnecessary limitation.
If one might consider this to change in Tapestry 6 Here is a simple way.
Let a thread to be owned by a tapestry instance. Therefore if you do
something like tapestry.newThread() a thread local is set within the new
thread and mark this thread to be owned by a specific instance. This would
also improve the injection capability and everyone could likely use
something like Tapestry.getCurrentInstance() to find the instance owning
the current thread. So no need for singletons and static references
anymore.
And yes currently the tapestry instance is represented by registry which
gives the chance to introduce a real Tapestry instance representation
without breaking the backward compatibility. So maybe one like to add this
to tapestry 5.5?
It would be huge for tapestry to simplify or better enabling test driven
development because of its
superiourity<https://www.google.de/search?&q=superiourity>;-). I spend
two weaks to get everything in place to start test driven
development and I am still improving it every now and then spending some
additional hours on it - and thats an afford that should not be necessary.
2013/10/19 Muhammad Gelbana <m....@gmail.com>
> I don't know how to inject the Registry as a service, but I'd like to ask,
> why ?
> And what's the flaw in having only one Tapestry instance per JVM ?
>
> *---------------------*
> *Muhammad Gelbana*
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgelbana
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Martin Kersten <
> martin.kersten.mk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I just wonder why the registry is not available as a service.
> >
> > Doing all those test writing I got used to handle the Registry directly.
> > Since the Registry represents the IOC for me, I just wonder why it is
> ment
> > to that the registry can not directly be injected (or do I miss something
> > here).
> >
> > The only reference I found was that the Registry adds itself to the
> > SerializationSupport. Which by checking the references looks like a
> relict
> > and should be removed from the code. It looks like that tapestry tries to
> > impose a single tapestry instance per JVM which seams to me like a design
> > flaw. (If you collect things to change for Tapestry 6 maybe one should
> add
> > that multiple instances of tapestry should be possible per JVM so no more
> > use of static references).
> >
> > So unitl I missed something, I just wonder why I can not do something
> like:
> >
> > ServiceImpl(Registry){...}
> >
> > I can provide it easily by doing something like:
> >
> > binder.bind(RegisteryReference.class);
> >
> > ---
> > registery.getService(RegisteryReference).setRegistery(registry);
> >
> > And then I inject the reference in my services. The reference uses a weak
> > link to ease gc on shutdown.
> >
> > (Or I just bind a registry wrapper that delegates the registry
> interaction
> > towards the real registry once it is created).
> >
> > Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the
> point
> > here and its already in place?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Martin (Kersten),
> > Germany
> >
>
Re: Why the Registry is not available as a service?
Posted by Muhammad Gelbana <m....@gmail.com>.
I don't know how to inject the Registry as a service, but I'd like to ask,
why ?
And what's the flaw in having only one Tapestry instance per JVM ?
*---------------------*
*Muhammad Gelbana*
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgelbana
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Martin Kersten <
martin.kersten.mk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I just wonder why the registry is not available as a service.
>
> Doing all those test writing I got used to handle the Registry directly.
> Since the Registry represents the IOC for me, I just wonder why it is ment
> to that the registry can not directly be injected (or do I miss something
> here).
>
> The only reference I found was that the Registry adds itself to the
> SerializationSupport. Which by checking the references looks like a relict
> and should be removed from the code. It looks like that tapestry tries to
> impose a single tapestry instance per JVM which seams to me like a design
> flaw. (If you collect things to change for Tapestry 6 maybe one should add
> that multiple instances of tapestry should be possible per JVM so no more
> use of static references).
>
> So unitl I missed something, I just wonder why I can not do something like:
>
> ServiceImpl(Registry){...}
>
> I can provide it easily by doing something like:
>
> binder.bind(RegisteryReference.class);
>
> ---
> registery.getService(RegisteryReference).setRegistery(registry);
>
> And then I inject the reference in my services. The reference uses a weak
> link to ease gc on shutdown.
>
> (Or I just bind a registry wrapper that delegates the registry interaction
> towards the real registry once it is created).
>
> Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the point
> here and its already in place?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin (Kersten),
> Germany
>
Re: Why the Registry is not available as a service?
Posted by Martin Kersten <ma...@gmail.com>.
For everyone that stumbles over this conversation. Here is the code I use
to access the registry outside of jetty. Basically its just about getting
the ServletContext object. If you have two or more WebAppContext you need
to inspect those, since I have only one I can go with the first one.
WebAppContext context = null;
for(Handler handler : jettyServer.getServer().getHandlers()) {
if(handler instanceof WebAppContext) {
context = (WebAppContext)handler;
break;
}
}
registry =
(Registry)context.getServletContext().getAttribute(TapestryFilter.REGISTRY_CONTEXT_NAME);
2013/10/19 Martin Kersten <ma...@gmail.com>
> > Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the
> point here and its already in place? <
>
> Done so.
>
> Anyway It is setting a SerializationProvider static property at startup.
> Since I see that the use is only to provide a Token it just makes me think
> that there is a limitation to one instance only.
>
> Anyway. Thanks for the reply. I will try to start up two instances of it
> and check if it works out.
>
> The object locator would be enough. Where is it added as a service? I just
> don't saw the registry object becoming available.
>
>
> 2013/10/19 Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>
>
> It is, not as the Registry service, but as the ObjectLocator service
>> (Registry extends ObjectLocator and ObjectLocator is the one that declares
>> the getService(), getObject() and autobuild() methods).
>>
>> Tapestry-IoC does *not* impose one Registry per JVM. Same for
>> Tapestry(-core). You can create as many Registry instances you want using
>> RegistryBuilder. Tapestry(-core) automatically creates one Registry per
>> web
>> application, but you can create as many as you want using RegistryBuilder.
>> For more information, read
>> http://tapestry.apache.org/starting-the-ioc-registry.html.
>>
>> By the way, it would be nice to ask how to do something instead of why x
>> doesn't exist, because sometimes it does exist, as that's the case with
>> both statements in the original message in the thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Martin Kersten <
>> martin.kersten.mk@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Hi there,
>> >
>> > I just wonder why the registry is not available as a service.
>> >
>> > Doing all those test writing I got used to handle the Registry directly.
>> > Since the Registry represents the IOC for me, I just wonder why it is
>> ment
>> > to that the registry can not directly be injected (or do I miss
>> something
>> > here).
>> >
>> > The only reference I found was that the Registry adds itself to the
>> > SerializationSupport. Which by checking the references looks like a
>> relict
>> > and should be removed from the code. It looks like that tapestry tries
>> to
>> > impose a single tapestry instance per JVM which seams to me like a
>> design
>> > flaw. (If you collect things to change for Tapestry 6 maybe one should
>> add
>> > that multiple instances of tapestry should be possible per JVM so no
>> more
>> > use of static references).
>> >
>> > So unitl I missed something, I just wonder why I can not do something
>> like:
>> >
>> > ServiceImpl(Registry){...}
>> >
>> > I can provide it easily by doing something like:
>> >
>> > binder.bind(RegisteryReference.class);
>> >
>> > ---
>> > registery.getService(RegisteryReference).setRegistery(registry);
>> >
>> > And then I inject the reference in my services. The reference uses a
>> weak
>> > link to ease gc on shutdown.
>> >
>> > (Or I just bind a registry wrapper that delegates the registry
>> interaction
>> > towards the real registry once it is created).
>> >
>> > Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the
>> point
>> > here and its already in place?
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Martin (Kersten),
>> > Germany
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thiago
>>
>
>
Re: Why the Registry is not available as a service?
Posted by Martin Kersten <ma...@gmail.com>.
> Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the
point here and its already in place? <
Done so.
Anyway It is setting a SerializationProvider static property at startup.
Since I see that the use is only to provide a Token it just makes me think
that there is a limitation to one instance only.
Anyway. Thanks for the reply. I will try to start up two instances of it
and check if it works out.
The object locator would be enough. Where is it added as a service? I just
don't saw the registry object becoming available.
2013/10/19 Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>
> It is, not as the Registry service, but as the ObjectLocator service
> (Registry extends ObjectLocator and ObjectLocator is the one that declares
> the getService(), getObject() and autobuild() methods).
>
> Tapestry-IoC does *not* impose one Registry per JVM. Same for
> Tapestry(-core). You can create as many Registry instances you want using
> RegistryBuilder. Tapestry(-core) automatically creates one Registry per web
> application, but you can create as many as you want using RegistryBuilder.
> For more information, read
> http://tapestry.apache.org/starting-the-ioc-registry.html.
>
> By the way, it would be nice to ask how to do something instead of why x
> doesn't exist, because sometimes it does exist, as that's the case with
> both statements in the original message in the thread.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Martin Kersten <
> martin.kersten.mk@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I just wonder why the registry is not available as a service.
> >
> > Doing all those test writing I got used to handle the Registry directly.
> > Since the Registry represents the IOC for me, I just wonder why it is
> ment
> > to that the registry can not directly be injected (or do I miss something
> > here).
> >
> > The only reference I found was that the Registry adds itself to the
> > SerializationSupport. Which by checking the references looks like a
> relict
> > and should be removed from the code. It looks like that tapestry tries to
> > impose a single tapestry instance per JVM which seams to me like a design
> > flaw. (If you collect things to change for Tapestry 6 maybe one should
> add
> > that multiple instances of tapestry should be possible per JVM so no more
> > use of static references).
> >
> > So unitl I missed something, I just wonder why I can not do something
> like:
> >
> > ServiceImpl(Registry){...}
> >
> > I can provide it easily by doing something like:
> >
> > binder.bind(RegisteryReference.class);
> >
> > ---
> > registery.getService(RegisteryReference).setRegistery(registry);
> >
> > And then I inject the reference in my services. The reference uses a weak
> > link to ease gc on shutdown.
> >
> > (Or I just bind a registry wrapper that delegates the registry
> interaction
> > towards the real registry once it is created).
> >
> > Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the
> point
> > here and its already in place?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Martin (Kersten),
> > Germany
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thiago
>
Re: Why the Registry is not available as a service?
Posted by "Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo" <th...@gmail.com>.
It is, not as the Registry service, but as the ObjectLocator service
(Registry extends ObjectLocator and ObjectLocator is the one that declares
the getService(), getObject() and autobuild() methods).
Tapestry-IoC does *not* impose one Registry per JVM. Same for
Tapestry(-core). You can create as many Registry instances you want using
RegistryBuilder. Tapestry(-core) automatically creates one Registry per web
application, but you can create as many as you want using RegistryBuilder.
For more information, read
http://tapestry.apache.org/starting-the-ioc-registry.html.
By the way, it would be nice to ask how to do something instead of why x
doesn't exist, because sometimes it does exist, as that's the case with
both statements in the original message in the thread.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Martin Kersten <martin.kersten.mk@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I just wonder why the registry is not available as a service.
>
> Doing all those test writing I got used to handle the Registry directly.
> Since the Registry represents the IOC for me, I just wonder why it is ment
> to that the registry can not directly be injected (or do I miss something
> here).
>
> The only reference I found was that the Registry adds itself to the
> SerializationSupport. Which by checking the references looks like a relict
> and should be removed from the code. It looks like that tapestry tries to
> impose a single tapestry instance per JVM which seams to me like a design
> flaw. (If you collect things to change for Tapestry 6 maybe one should add
> that multiple instances of tapestry should be possible per JVM so no more
> use of static references).
>
> So unitl I missed something, I just wonder why I can not do something like:
>
> ServiceImpl(Registry){...}
>
> I can provide it easily by doing something like:
>
> binder.bind(RegisteryReference.class);
>
> ---
> registery.getService(RegisteryReference).setRegistery(registry);
>
> And then I inject the reference in my services. The reference uses a weak
> link to ease gc on shutdown.
>
> (Or I just bind a registry wrapper that delegates the registry interaction
> towards the real registry once it is created).
>
> Any comments why this is not available by default or did I missed the point
> here and its already in place?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin (Kersten),
> Germany
>
--
Thiago