From: "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Peter Royal wrote: > > >On Thursday 06 June 2002 10:58 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> Modified: > >>containerkit/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/containerkit/lifecycle > >>LifecycleHelper.java > >> Log: > >> corrected to handle if( Configurable ) else if( Parameterizable ) > >> > > > >Is this correct, are Configurable and Parameterizable mutally exclusive? > > > > Yes. > See the Configurable description on > http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/api/index.html and the Parameterizable > description on http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/api/index.html. Oh. Never knew that. I don't like them to be mutually exclusive, there is no way to enforce this contract compile-time, even if the contract *is* checked at compile time (interface). > >There are cases inside the phoenix kernel where an object is both > >Configurable *AND* Parameterizable. > > > > Not that I am aware of . In the Cocoon lifecycle helpers, this check is not done. It could create incompatibilities. Are there any *strong* reasons why this is necessary? " The Parameterizable interface is a light-weight alternative to the Configurable interface. As such, the Parameterizable interface and the Configurable interface are not compatible. " seems not really a big reason. I have alway used Configurable primarly for init time configuration and Parametrizable for runtime stuff. I don' see the incompatibility. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
