Re: Any idea for JDK 1.5 clean implementation?

Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> 
>> you have anything specific in mind?
>>
> Well I want to use something really simple for GUIApp, and I
> have found good use for the attributes with that application.
> JDK 1.5 has attributes built in, so I just wanted to look at
> the possibility of building on top of Jicerrilla with the
> hookups I wanted--most likely an add-on to the core functionality.

ooh....a potential user! :-D

I did some work and thinking about attributes in event frameworks, llike 
marking some methods @Asyncable to indicate that they can be redirected 
to asynchronous handling via an AsyncEnabled interface. Another thought 
was perhaps even specifying the possible wiring of things using 
attributes, ie

public class MyProcessor extends AbstractStage
{
   public void
     @Accept(HTTPEvent.class)
     @Accept(JiniEvent.class)
           process( Object event ) { /* ... */ }
}

and stuff like that, but that was all using Leo Sutic's attributes 
package. I ditched all that in favor of figuring out how to manually 
wire things first (too much big steps at once, so I kinda lost solid 
direction). That work is reasonably complete now (ie jicarilla-framework 
package), and easily ported from util.concurrent to the new jdk 1.5 
concurrency package (the coupling consists of the use of Puttable, 
Takeable, Channel, and Executor interfaces).

But I'm not entirely sure I want to do that. I'm kinda hoping for Doug 
Lea, or someone else, to provide an updated util.concurrent which wraps 
the jdk 1.5 materials. I'm not sure whether that's gonna happen, but it 
sounds like a good idea.

Jicarilla-Container is quite usable and reasonably stable (the core 
parts have near-100% test coverage), but atm you should only use it if 
you really need release()/pooling semantics. If not, a better bet is 
probably just using pico (which reminds me, I need to submit avalon 
adapters for pico :D). It's not anywhere near "mature". Especially the 
integration with other solutions (like fortress or pico) needs a lot 
more work.

I wouldn't recommend touching any of the 'components' (ie the 
webserver). That's alpha as hell :D:D

-- 
cheers,

- Leo Simons

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog              -- http://leosimons.com/
IoC Component Glue  -- http://jicarilla.org/
Articles & Opinions -- http://articles.leosimons.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
  people wouldn't obey the rules."
                                                         -- Alan Bennett




-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click