Correction ...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, 03 March, 2002 21:15
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: RE: Excalibur service package
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, 03 March, 2002 19:36
> > To: Avalon Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Excalibur service package
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > >       I would prefer an approach
> > >       where the service manager implementation could locate a pool
> > >       provider (handler) based on the type of object that is returned.
> >
> > Impossible. Consider a component, my.ComponentImpl, that implements
> > my.Component and is pooled.
> >
> > Now consider the two roles my.Component/B and my.Component/A.
> >
> > Since the two roles have different configurations they are not
> equivalent.
>
> I'm not providing support for configuration relative to roles.  The
> implementation is based on the Phoenix notion of roles where a role is a
> name that is used by a component when invoking lookup on a manager.  The
> loader's responsibility here is to associate the service under
> the supplied role name.

What I said above is bit missleading - Phoenix provides support for
association of block implementations with a named configuration via the
information in the assembly.xml file.  I'm still looking into how that
can be achieved using default information so that the ability to run a
component/object does not require additional info beyond a default
configuration bound to the implementation (but enabling the overrided
of default values at site level as required).

Cheers, Steve.





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to