Re: [Webmacro-devel] The webapp: I need help with WM config hassl es

[Marc P. <ma...@an...>]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:57:37 -0800, Brian Goetz <br...@qu...> wrote:

> Actually, it was a sequence of decision.  The ones I made were
> attempts to clean up the refuse of those made before me... :)
> Obviously I was only partially successful.

Well don't beat yourself up - I dread to think what it was like before :)

[snip]
> In a servlet container with multiple web apps, there WILL be multiple
> sets of WM configurations, as configuration can be loaded from the web
> app or from the deployment descriptor.  So yes, you need to support
> partitions if you want to put the WM.jar in the container-wide
> classpath.

OK I see that. Though I have never thought of using WM like that, since 
webapps came along.

>> How many apps create multiple WM instances that exactly the same broker?
>
> Any site that deploys more than one WM-based web-app in a servlet
> container.

...but only if they use a shared WM in the container /lib right? If WM's 
jar is in each webapp's own /lib then they will all be on separate 
classloaders and there will be no crosstalk between webapps and their WM 
settings/brokers.

>> I would have made it so that everything uses its own new broker by
>> default, and only uses a "shared" broker if it is explicitly passed
>> to the WM constructor. i.e.
>>
>> Broker mySharedBroker = Broker.findBroker( mySharedKey);
>> WM wm = new WM(mySharedBroker);
>>
>> ...rather than having using this hidden "sharing" mechanism.
>
> What I want is to say:
>
> WM wm = getWM(Servlet)
> or
> WM wm = getWM(config-file)
>
> There can be an explicit sharing mechanism if you want to roll your own,
> say a WM tht gets its config from a Properties.

OK.

>> Hmm... how about a new ctor for WM that takes an Object that is the 
>> WM/broker partition "key".  I think this can be done quite easily by 
>> passing this key to the static getBroker methods on Broker and 
>> ServletBroker (and 22 and 20 Broker).
>
> This is part of it.
>
>> FWIW I have always cursed the fact that WM could not init from a 
>> Properties object!
>
> Me too.  You'd need an explicit naming/sharing mechanism for this.
>
> Here's what I want to see:
>
> - create an abstraction called "WMInstance".  It will export some, but 
> not
> all, of the Broker interface. - make a sharing repository that lets you 
> find WM instances.  - make factory methods that replace the functionality 
> of new WM(Servlet)
> and friends.
> - make the new WM() constructors work with that, but mark them clearly as 
> convenience wrappers only.
>
> Then, behind the scenes, we can break up Broker.

OK... I see this I think, though it sounds a lot more work than the 
proposal I have made to augment the current system...

-- 
Marc Palmer