> Remy, > > >If our helper object for embedding doesn't fit your needs, I suggest you > >write your own instead. It doesn't take long, and it will do what you want > >(including having an interface, so it fits into your virtual OS dream). > > > I am talking about Avalon (another Jakarta project). It is not a > 'dream' We already have a third-party web server running in it - > Hendrik Schreiber's most excellent 'Jo!'. It is quite embarrasing that > we do not yet (but are so close) have Catalina running in it. > > >There are real world users of the current Embedded class (including JBoss > >and the J2EE RI), and none of them would see any benefit about having an > >interface instead of object. Since I'd like to avoid unseless changes for > >the users and also keep the design simpler if I can, I will NOT change the > >current Embedded object to do what you propose, and I vote -1 to the > >associated patch. > > > I am going ask ask you again, *Please* consider the merit for this, It > is not unreasonable. The change is not useless as you say. I was not > incorrect suggesting another reason for interface/impl separation (it > was not new to you dude, it had just slipped your mind) was I?. It is > such a small thing to do. Please dude.....
And why don't you want to write your own wrapper (I doubt Embedded is adapted to your use case anyway), and put it in the Avalon tree ? That's why I do with the various Catalina wrappers Slide has, and it doesn't cause any problems. Also, not having separated interfaces and implementations doesn't prevent from running under Avalon, it only removes the inter-application security, which isn't very useful (unless you have a Java mail server which routinely tries to hack your Java web server using its internal Java APIs). Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
