[dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??

[David McKnight <dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I like the idea but I'm thinking that
it would be good to still keep the service creation with the configuration
rather than the factory.  There could be a single factory for each
different type of service subsystem:

Example:
        FileServiceSubSystemFactory
 --> produces --> FileServiceSubSystem
        ShellServiceSubSystemFactory
--> produces --> ShellServiceSubSystem
        ProcessServiceSubSystemFactory
--> produces --> ProcessServiceSubSystem
        ...

The factory would be responsible for
the lifecycle of the subsystem but would use the configuration to define,
not only the attributes in terms of "isCaseSensitive()" and such
but also the services themselves.   The factory could use the the
current to setup the service configuration for a subsystem.  For each,
service there could be a different configuration:

Example:
        DStoreFileServiceConfiguration
        SSHFileServiceConfguration
        FTPFileServiceConfiguration

A given factory may use one of the available
configurations for creating the subsystem as well as changing it's configuration
- for example, when switching between FTP and DStore.

If we were to take this approach, we
could keep the configuration extension point pretty much the same - since
it's really there to contribute the services, but we'd need to introduce
a new extension point for the subsystem factory.  So there would be
a FileServiceSubSystemFactory contribution before any service configurations
are defined.

What do you think of this?

____________________________________
David McKnight    
Phone:   905-413-3902 , T/L:  969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail:       D1/140/8200/TOR
____________________________________

David Dykstal/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS

10/08/2006 10:13 AM

To	"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	"David McKnight" <dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Target Management developer discussions" <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kushal Munir" <kmunir@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??Link

Interesting idea.

In most cases where we have to grab
the SubSystemConfiguration from the subsystem we would continue to do so.
 So its possible this won't be as bad as I initially suspected. This
is a pretty pervasive hit though and it affects the extension points. Would
you expect to define both subystem factory and subsystem configuration
extension points independently or would a subsystem factory provide a subsystem
configuration to the subsystems it creates?
_______________________
David Dykstal
david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx