Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Leo Sutic wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>> To be concrete, this is the Cocoon Context:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicola, I do not understand what you're getting at.
>>
>
> I'm just telling you what Cocoon uses as a Context *now*.
> It's just a fact.
>
> What I would like is to see suggestions from you on how it should be
> done instead, or if it's ok as-is.
>
>>> My point is that if the context is only constants that
>>> are entered by an assembler (a person), then it is not
>>> different from a Configuration.
>>
>
> And the Cocoon one is not entered by an assembler.
> It contains also params that change *per request*.
>
>> Disagree - a configuration is an object model that provides access to
>> basic types (Strings, booleans, long, int, etc.). It has no support
>> for complex types (e.g. java.io.File). A context object created
>> using directives prepared by an assembler can contain directives for
>> the creation of basic AND complex types (see earlier example and
>> ContextFactory source). I can write directives for creation of
>> objects with multiple argument constructors - which basically means
>> that minimal effort is needed.
>
>
> This is what happens now, but IMHO it's not a definition of what a
> context should do (and I don't think you were giving a definition BTW ;-)
>
> Can you guys please tell me what you would do for the CocoonContext or
> you don't have a clue?
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=102562981120502&w=2
--
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]>
