Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> I think we need to take a good long look at usage versus abusage.
>
>
> Good point.
>
> > The
>
>> CM/SM interfaces define a utility through which a container can
>> supply dependent services to a component during the lifecycle
>> processing phase. As soon as you apply supplimentary scope on CM/SM,
>> the probelm expands dramtically and we see the current level of
>> consufion about how the interface is used.
>
>
> It seems so.
>
>> Bottom line - this is easily correctable without modifying the CM/SM
>> lookup signature.
>
>
> I think I start to understand the architectural view of this.
> Since doing a lookup and supplying a constraint can be seen as
> separate concerns (is it this that you say?), it's good practice to
> keep them separate.
Yes.
>
>
> In this way, getting a Selector is not so bad, since it separates the
> role lookup and the selection... *if* we can assume that extra
> constraints told in the selection do not impact dependency resolution...
> hmmm...
[slow drawout yeeeess ....] but alarm bells ringing only becasue my
hunch is that you really want something special - not selctor, but a
special dedication component registry/directory interface that will
scale up with the Coccon application scope. It also provides the
opportunity of moving the problem out of the framework abstraction space.
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]>
