portals-jetspeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From j...@apache.org
Subject [jira] Commented: (JS2-61) Move pipeline assembly out of XML and into jetspeed.groovy assembly
Date Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:43:53 GMT
The following comment has been added to this issue:

     Author: Serge Huber
    Created: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 4:43 AM
My proposal was for passing an Object instead of a Map because Map have a tendency to be used
as "dynamic" object structures, which make the code hard to read. Passing an object means
that we could keep using the pipeline with RequestContext objects for J2, but also use the
pipeline impl outside of J2.

Concretely what I am proposing is that :
- Pipeline.java uses Object instead of RequestContext in it's interface
- JetspeedPipeline only needs to change it's interface, the impl does *NOT* have to change,
passing an RequestContext is perfectly acceptable since we are using Object.
- Valve.java uses Object instead of RequestContext in it's interface
- Valve implementations be simply modified to cast from Object to RequestContext. I know this
cast is not perfect, but until we can use Java Generics I don't see a way around this.

Again this is just a proposal I am coming forward with because I needed a pipeline in another
project and I liked the one in J2, except for the RequestContext dependency.
View this comment:

View the issue:

Here is an overview of the issue:
        Key: JS2-61
    Summary: Move pipeline assembly out of XML and into jetspeed.groovy assembly
       Type: Task

     Status: Open
   Priority: Major

    Project: Jetspeed 2

   Assignee: Scott T Weaver
   Reporter: Scott T Weaver

    Created: Fri, 28 May 2004 8:14 AM
    Updated: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 4:43 AM

Having the pipeline's valve assembly defined within an XML smells funny as it is describing
"guts" (i.e. class names) with in a configuration script instead of assembly.  Moving this
into jetspeed.groovy AND making  the JetpseedPipline extend pico container and deploy it as
a sub-container makes a whole lotta sense to me.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.

If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:

If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see:

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

View raw message