james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [mailets] POJOs (and in particular SieveToMultiMailbox)
Date Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:28:57 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Steve Brewin <sbrewin@synsys.com> wrote:
>>>> Robert Burrell Donkin [mailto:robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com] wrote on 04
>>>> September 2008 17:52
>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO the best approach for the mailets James
ships would to be
>>>>>>>>>>> agnostic and support both types of injection
>>>>> providing appropriate
>>>>>>>>>>> setters and constructors
>>>>>>>>>> the problem with mixing CDI and SDI is that CDI expect
>>>>> no default
>>>>>>>>>> constructor because a default constructor would mean
that every
>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>> is optional.
>>>> Sorry to jump in late...
>>>> Trying to simultaneously support both CDI and SDI styles of dependency
>>>> injection will just lead to a very muddled set of contracts. Even within
>>>> a
>>>> DI style the lifecycles differ.
>>> the only way i can see this stuff working anyway is be to clearly
>>> split into two contracts
>>> 1. assembly lifecycle: a loader loads an instance and links it to the
>>> objects it needs. this is covered by the specification of whatever
>>> assembly tool is used.
>>> 2. mailet lifecycle: once the instance has been assembled, the mailet
>>> engine manages the lifecycle of the instance as a mailet. this is
>>> covered in the mailet specification
>>> the assembly lifecycle would be governed by container used to load the
>>> instance. this might use JNDI, GBean, spring, avalon, OSGi. some
>>> mailets may only support a single assembly mechanism but IMHO james
>>> mailets should try to be agnostic POJOs.
>> I think we should suggest a preferred style, but we can defer this choice to
>> the moment we'll define "official" SPI for
>> mailrepository/users/xml-sql-datasrouces access.
> IMO it's not worthwhile getting into a religious war: we should just
> design our mailets to be as re-usable as possible.

+1 and I just want to say that I'm happy with CDI too. Your arguments 
was convincing. Steve point about choose one style instead of doing 
something in the middle is something I completely agree with, too.


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

View raw message