You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> on 2001/09/23 06:53:30 UTC
[phoenix] Should service interfaces extend Service?
Hi,
Currently the interface org.apache.avalon.phoenix.Service should be the base
interface of any service interfaces. However there is nothing in the kernel
that mandates this or raises an error when Services don't extend this
interface.
The question is - should they?
The original motivation behind requiring services extend the Service
interface was to enable easy identification for GUI assembler to be written.
However we can get around this through other methods, the most obvious of
which would be placing attributes in manifest (perhaps Avalon-Service: true)
or something.
So my question is should we require that services extend service. I can make
it required or maybe just sternly warn when Service interfaces are
non-compliant or we can deprecate the interface altogether.
Thoughts?
--
Cheers,
Pete
*---------------------------------------------------------*
| Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user-friendly. It |
| just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship |
| with. |
| - Richard Cook |
*---------------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [phoenix] Should service interfaces extend Service?
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:15, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Peter
>
> >kool. So do we deprecate the Service interface aswell?
>
> Yup, delete in some weeks.
I will issue warnings now and when we change from alpha->beta we can remove
it completely. Sound good?
> Can I purge existing occurances of "extends
> Service" now ?
Go for it.
--
Cheers,
Pete
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Twain: "In the real world, the right thing never
happens in the right place at the right time. It is
the task of journalists and historians to rectify
this error."
------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [phoenix] Should service interfaces extend Service?
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Peter
>kool. So do we deprecate the Service interface aswell?
>
Yup, delete in some weeks. Can I purge existing occurances of "extends
Service" now ?
- PH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [phoenix] Should service interfaces extend Service?
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 07:25, Paul Hammant wrote:
> >So my question is should we require that services extend service. I can
> > make it required or maybe just sternly warn when Service interfaces are
> > non-compliant or we can deprecate the interface altogether.
>
> Change ... services no longer needing to extend Service :
>
> +1
kool. So do we deprecate the Service interface aswell?
> Would they still requite a member variable called ROLE ?
Naah - thats just a nice convention ;)
> This would be cool as it would allow us (me) to blockify third party
> appications more easily. That is, provided they have seperated into
> interface/implementation.
woohoo.
--
Cheers,
Pete
-----------------------------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and
human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former." -Albert Einstein
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [phoenix] Should service interfaces extend Service?
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Peter,
>So my question is should we require that services extend service. I can make
>it required or maybe just sternly warn when Service interfaces are
>non-compliant or we can deprecate the interface altogether.
>
Change ... services no longer needing to extend Service :
+1
Would they still requite a member variable called ROLE ?
This would be cool as it would allow us (me) to blockify third party
appications more easily. That is, provided they have seperated into
interface/implementation.
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org