> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > <attention mode="heretic"> > Component interface as a teg interface is useless and in some > cases bad > for reasons already expressed. > But maybe we could make an abstrace SafeService that can act > as a base > class to extend to make a Service that can be created only by a > Container: private method, creator method and check of proper > order of > interface calling. > </attention>
What you are proposing would *require* a minimal definition of a container in framework. A generic container cannot access private members of components unless it is a class enclosed in itself. Furthermore, a generic container cannot access protected members (including constructors) unless they are in the same package. It's just not feasible. > This is an implementation detail. > Or you do Role,SubRole or "role/subrole". > It's not a problem, but semantically there is a point in > defining role > and subrole. In essence what the CM as I have defined it would do. Just change the Object for String, and the name hint for subrole, and viola' you have what you are looking for. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
