Stephen wrote: ||| > What if there are many implementations for the same role, and ||| > only some them are poolable. Shouldn't it be possible to switch the ||| > implementation without changing the client code? ||| ||| I agree completely with the scenario objective. I don't think the ||| consequences of the convenience support are justified. An implementation ||| of ServiceManger that supported "release" on the grounds that it is ||| auto-magically handling recycled components would require something like ||| a foralll embedded pools and selectors - release this object if you have ||| a reference to it. Given a choice between forcing clients to take ||| responsibility for knowing for service procurement source type, as ||| opposed to generic simplification at the framework level, in this ||| particular case my preference is to push this burden onto the client for ||| the sake of framework integrity.
Could you expand on this argument a little further? I consider the ability to transparently move between Factory, Pool, and Singleton implementations of Components with changing code to be a BIG plus. I'd be sad if it was jettisoned. Ryan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
