Salut,
Jan Luehe wrote:
> On 02/06/09 09:25, Jerome Dochez wrote:
>> I could not resist looking at the APIs and it seems very similar to
>> the XML inspired way of organization the metadata, wouldn't be more
>> java centric to propose APIs like :
>>
>> Interface Contect {
>>
>> public Servlet addServlet(String name, Class<? extends
>> javax.servlet.Servlet> servletClass);
>
> Would it make more sense to pass a Servlet instance, rather
> than a Servlet Class object?
+1.
>
> This would give developers more flexibility in how the Servlet is
> constructed, rather than limiting them to a zero-arg constructor
> (which would be the case when passing in a Class object).
>
> To address Jeanfrancois' comment about missing listener support, i think we
> should define methods on Context for adding each of the following
> listener types (which may already be declared in web.xml):
>
> javax.servlet.ServletContextAttributeListener
> javax.servlet.ServletRequestAttributeListener
> javax.servlet.ServletRequestListener
> javax.servlet.ServletContextListener
> javax.servlet.http.HttpSessionAttributeListener
> javax.servlet.http.HttpSessionListener
>
> Again, I suggest we pass listener instances, instead of the underlying
> Class objects.
The issue here is they don't share any base class (do they..too lazy to
look at :-)). That's why (at least in Grizzly) we support passing the
String, e.g. the fully qualified class name. That way the API doesn't
have all the get/set for every listener.
A+
-- Jeanfrancois
>
>
> Jan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>