james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danny Angus <danny.an...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [James-NG] Avalon-free James proposal and reference implementation
Date Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:09:27 GMT
> Noel, I respect you very much, but please no JNDI configuration this
> throws all POJO efforts away - again ALL (not the some but ALL) objects
> requiring configuration have to now about external entity. That is bad
> and does not give CDI IoC benefits.

I don't agree. we may have to have SOME bootstrap services which know
how to get config from JNDI and config other services.

Apart from that JNDI isn't some hole-in-the-corner secret it is part
of J2SE and we don't need a container to provide JNDI, we can provide
our own.

> As for commons-configuration it is like logging in a sense it is
> supposed that every class on earth should use one and only configuration
> method "commons-configuration", but in CDI IoC itself configuration idea
> is built-in and no external library/framework/whatever is needed to
> configure a collection of POJOs built with CDI IoC in mind.

That is OK if you assume that there are no configurable options that
you might wish to change at start up or runtime.

We do see some separation of "binding times" for configuration.
a) Assembly configuration asks, what objects should be instantiated to
satisfy a requirement for a service implementation.
b) Operational configuration asks what parameters should be supplied
to instantiated services in order to modify their behaviour at

We are likely to see two different classes of user attending to the
two different areas, and if there are two different approaches then
that is not necessarily a bad thing. Let IoC take care of "a" but
provide a simple mechanism for users to attend to "b".

Or not? What do you think?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message