> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:43, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > > The CM is just a facade about the underlying store in the
> > > container - you can
> > > provide whatever mechanisms you want by putting a lil logic in the CM.
> >
> > But then it is as I said - the CM is the container, and the request must
> > come in through the CM. Then the container isa CM, not
> container hasa CM.
>
> hmmm? I am not sure how you got to this conclusion. Have you lookd at the
> phoenix code?
No, but what you say is quite clear. If lookups are done through a CM,
and that CM does not expose a release() method then
- you must either have a per-request wrapper around the CM.
- the CM must be made aware of the start and end of each request.
In the first case, you must call recompose all the time, as a component
can service several requests. In the second case, the CM must expose
other methods.
but this point is moot - you have shown below how you want it done.
> > > public doThis( Request r ) {
> > > ((DBConnection)r.getComponentManager().lookup( DBConnection.ROLE
> > > )).x(); }
> >
> > Ugly - requires a framework-level Request object and different
> interfaces
> > for static/per-request usage for each component.
>
> You mean that separate concerns are separated ? Fancy that!
Please define how separate concerns are separated. All I see is
a hack on top of a kludge to make something undesirable run.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
