Leo Simons wrote: [...]
Actually this is the easiest and fastest way.The right fix? -------------- The question now is: how does one implement the dependency mapping that ServiceManager needs in the simplest way possible?Some options crossed my mind: - express dependencies as ordering inside a .properties file: all items that come below another one are allowed to depend on the ones above them. Bad because ordering of properties is not the way property files normally work and it adds additional semantics.
Don't want to use properties because of overloading semantics? Create a new file type and parse that:
component role=blah1 class=com.foo.blah1
component role="blah2" class="com.foo.blah2"
Not really. Since Tweety is a tutorial container, I would keep the "ordering" solution as a second tutorial step (Egg=0 Tweety=1), and implement this option for the third step.- express dependencies in an ant-like fashion. Ie replace the properties file with something like tweety.config ------------- <component role="blah1" class="com.foo.blah1"/> <component role="blah2" class="com.foo.blah2"/> <component role="blah3" class="com.foo.blah3" requires="blah1,blah2"/> this could set us on the road to complex container land.....
It's quite easy unroll the aboce dependencies, and basically that's all there is to it, I don't see the "complex container land" problem.
- dissallow dependencies, ie not support ServiceManager. The perceived added value of the framework goes to zero.
-0.9 yup, exactly
- express dependencies in object form, ie:
-0.99 Java "extends" and "implements" are "it", if we need we read those
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
