On Tue, 28 May 2002 16:17, Peter Donald wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2002 15:57, Adam Murdoch wrote: > > > yep - Thats why I said it was UGLY ;) It still works (as the > > > MSServiceManager gets wrapped in DSM later) but I am in middle of > > > reorganizing that stuff. > > > > So why does the property store need to be a service? > > Why not? ;)
Hmm, good question. I guess there's no reason why not. > > > > What did you have in mind? > > > > > > Basically I was thinking that you should be able to pass > > > * some metainfo object (ie info about type) > > > * some metadata object (ie instance about instance) > > > > What are some examples of the kind of info we'd need? > > Mainly the roles that the component implements and the roles that the > component requires. We could add cutesy stuff in there aswell (like > versioning etc) but that is secondary to the other bits IMO. Something else that might be useful, is info about which scope the service should be instantiated in. eg, some services need to be created in the root execution frame, others only make sense per-workspace, or per-project (or per-task even). > > > The ServiceRegistry interface is just the "writing" counterpart to > > > ServiceManager (like TypeRegistry/TypeManager etc). > > > > Ok. Would this be a scoped service? > > Not sure - probably it would be just an interface into ServiceKernel which > would be scoped .. maybe (not sure yet - need to play). And would ExecutionFrame be basically a thin wrapper around a ServiceKernel (and ServiceRegistry)? -- Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
