You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> on 2007/10/07 19:57:56 UTC
[orchestra] BasicFrameworkAdapter
Simon,
any reason you called it BasicFrameworkAdapter and not
ServletFrameworkAdapter or ServletContainerFrameworkAdapter?
Basic sound like basic for all implementations and not just servlet
container based ones.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [orchestra] BasicFrameworkAdapter
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
> Maybe "PlainServletFrameworkAdapter", to indicate that this adapter does not depend on anything other than the plain javax.servlet apis?
> Or just ServletFrameworkAdapter as you originally suggested...plus good javadoc to explain the name.
> Or leave it as BasicFrameworkAdapter, and add better docs to explain it depends on only the "basic" servlet api.
>
> Feel free to make whatever choice you prefer here; I'm not desperately attached to any particular name :-)
>
Nor am I, so lets go with Basic.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [orchestra] BasicFrameworkAdapter
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 20:26 +0200, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> > The name ServletFrameworkAdapter sounded too much like FrameworkAdapterServlet to me. I thought it was confusing.
> >
> > Although BasicFrameworkAdapter isn't perfect I agree.
> >
> > Do you think it is possible or reasonable to port Orchestra to a non-servlet environment? I know they exist (eg RIFE) but would be very surprised if Orchestra could be reasonably ported to such an environment.
> >
> I don't think something like this would ever happen, but who knows? ;-)
>
> What about ServletContainerFrameworkAdapter? Or HttpFrameworkAdapter as
> effectively one needs a session to run Orchestra which is provided only
> by http environments in our case.
The framework adapter is specific to the UI presentation layer, eg "invoke navigation" is supposed to do whatever is native to the relevant environment.
But "http" is a UI presentation layer, and neither is a "servlet container".
Maybe "PlainServletFrameworkAdapter", to indicate that this adapter does not depend on anything other than the plain javax.servlet apis?
Or just ServletFrameworkAdapter as you originally suggested...plus good javadoc to explain the name.
Or leave it as BasicFrameworkAdapter, and add better docs to explain it depends on only the "basic" servlet api.
Feel free to make whatever choice you prefer here; I'm not desperately attached to any particular name :-)
Regards,
Simon
Re: [orchestra] BasicFrameworkAdapter
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
> The name ServletFrameworkAdapter sounded too much like FrameworkAdapterServlet to me. I thought it was confusing.
>
> Although BasicFrameworkAdapter isn't perfect I agree.
>
> Do you think it is possible or reasonable to port Orchestra to a non-servlet environment? I know they exist (eg RIFE) but would be very surprised if Orchestra could be reasonably ported to such an environment.
>
I don't think something like this would ever happen, but who knows? ;-)
What about ServletContainerFrameworkAdapter? Or HttpFrameworkAdapter as
effectively one needs a session to run Orchestra which is provided only
by http environments in our case.
Ciao,
Mario
Re: [orchestra] BasicFrameworkAdapter
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 19:57 +0200, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Simon,
>
> any reason you called it BasicFrameworkAdapter and not
> ServletFrameworkAdapter or ServletContainerFrameworkAdapter?
> Basic sound like basic for all implementations and not just servlet
> container based ones.
The name ServletFrameworkAdapter sounded too much like FrameworkAdapterServlet to me. I thought it was confusing.
Although BasicFrameworkAdapter isn't perfect I agree.
Do you think it is possible or reasonable to port Orchestra to a non-servlet environment? I know they exist (eg RIFE) but would be very surprised if Orchestra could be reasonably ported to such an environment.
Regards,
Simon