> From: Marcus Crafter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Berin - is this the direction we should be heading with Fortress > (ie. automatic dependency resolution, etc). > > I've got the code together to be able to specify a handlers > initialization policy via an 'activation' attribute, similar to > what Steven did with Merlin. Should I go ahead and commit this ? > or should we discuss it further ?
I do want to go in one direction for specifying component dependencies and meta-info. Truth be told, the RoleManager's chief role is to enable the specification of meta info. The Fortress design allows us to reverse engineer the configuration so that if the user specified the old style <component/> entry, we could convert it to a more friendly name. That said, I do want Merlin and Fortress to converge on one way of specifying components, and their initialization policy. That will take away the 90% of the need to create our own containers. That way, the main difference between Merlin and Fortress will be the Async/Sync component management policies, and the support for lifecycle extension. BTW, What is your feeling on lifecycle extension? Is it something that we can propose for ContainerKit and make it easier for all containers to support it? Stephen, what is your feeling on it? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
