On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:53, Peter M. Goldstein wrote: > > Thats essentially how it is defined now and how I think it should be. > > Well, I'm glad you concur but I don't think there is a general consensus > among the participants in Avalon-dev. I certainly don't see this > definition (or anything like it) clearly elucidated in the docs. To me, > this paragraph seems like a natural starting point from which to build > such a consensus as to the proper responsibilities of Context and > ServiceManager.
The problem is that people disagree. However if you look at implemented containers (here and elsewhere) the released implementations mainly follow those guidelines. The way Avalon context kinda came to be is that you take ServletContext and separate out concerns that are Container agnostic (such as Logging, service provision, configuration) and leave the remainder in the context. So Context = ServletContext - Logger - Configuration - ServiceManager If you use the Context you are binding to container specific assumptions - some of these assumptions may be shared between containers but some (like shutting down app, bouncing mail, evaluating a property etc) are container specific. > Absolutely. And the inner Context can provide a nice abstraction > barrier that insulates one container from another. yep. Thats the way it was intended to work - kinda based on other service frameworks. -- 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]>
