Re: [proposal] avalon 5 ComponentManager interface

[Stephen McConnell]

Berin Loritsch wrote:

>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>>
>>Leo Sutic wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The need for hints exist because we have decided that the
>>>role should be an interface name.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Slowdown here - can anyone/someone please refer me to any Avalon 
>>framework documentation anywhere that states a role is an interface 
>>name?  Please - let's not get mixed up between decisions 
>>concerning ECM. 
>> The CM/SM is not and does not inherit from ECM.
>>    
>>
>
>Developing with Avalon?
>
>It's a decision we came to a long time ago.
>
-1

The "decision" is not documented in the CM/SM interfaces - is not 
enforced by anything in the framework least of all 
DefaultComponentManager or DefaultServiceManager.  But the worst thing 
of all is that implies the potential interpritation of the lookup key on 
a CM/SM manager implemetation. The decision I accept is the decision 
expressed by the CM/SM interfaces and the javadoc that goes with them.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net




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