Peter Donald wrote:
>
> At 09:50 17/5/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >For instances where you will have one and only one connection available, yes.
> >I know for Cocoon, we wanted the ability to have a reference to more than
> >one database. I can think of a number of applications where this is true.
> >That's why I had the ROLE as the "Selector" version.
>
> I don't think having ROLE refer to different things depending on particular
> interface is a good thing. It they want to use Selectors (or flavored
> versions) I believe something like
>
> interface Foo
> {
> String ROLE = "com.biz.Foo";
> }
>
> ...
> Selector s = (Selector)componentManager.lookup( Foo.ROLE + "Selector" );
> ...
> Foo f = (Foo)componentManager.lookup( Foo.ROLE + "/Flavour" );
> ...
> Foo f = (Foo)componentManager.lookup( Foo.ROLE );
>
> may be simpler to use. What do you think ?
>
+10. I like it alot. It would mean a minor change to Cocoon role names,
but since they are handled in the cocoon.roles file and the Roles interface,
the impact is minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
