At 01:45 AM 6/14/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>I'm going to try and rephrase this. In the context of ECM (as a component
>factory serving dynamic request - and lacking support for component
>dependency declarations), a single flat key is insufficient to describe
>both an interface name and preferred implementation.
True but the role string is not meant to declare the constraints it is
meant to name a set of constraints. The primary constraint being the type
of the component.
so lets say that Consumer Component A has a dependency P on a component
that satisfies the constraints x, y and z.
Component: A
Dependency: P
Constraints of P: x, y ,z
Usually there is only one constraint (lets say x) and that is that the
component that provides dependency P is of a certain type. By convention P
is the name of type.
>Open Questions:
>---------------
>
>And what about Fortress ? Where does Fortress fit within this picture?
>What is the potential for Fortress extending a generic abstract assembly
>framework. Are the ECM constraints concerning the CM lookup argument
>semantics also applicable? Does Fortress bring any new
>issues/opportunities to the table?
If you and Leo cooperate then from what I understand Fortress is very
similar to Merlin except that it does Pooling/Recycling of components on
release()
Cheers,
Peter Donald
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind,
and proving that there is no need to do so - almost
everyone gets busy on the proof."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
