Lets simplify a bit. Assume that we ignore syntactic sugar and access data via "well defined" entrys. So rather than
((FooContext)context).getFooDirectory() we use (File)context.get( "foo:directory" ); And lets also assume that there are few (if any?) reasonable use cases where you would cast a context to multiple different types because domain specific services don't tend to cross multiple domains. Last time this was proposed, no one was able to come up with a viable use case for this. So this means code like the following is not really an approved approach. ((FooContext)context).getFooDirectory() ((BarContext)context).getBarDirectory() If you make those above assumptions then you have just defined Context as defined by Info. See; http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/info/ http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/info/context.html -- Cheers, Peter Donald *------------------------------------------------------* | An expert is someone who knows everything about the | | topic except for its place in the world. | *------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
