At 02:46 27/2/01 -0800, Federico Barbieri wrote: >Peter Donald wrote: >> >> At 12:59 27/2/01 -0800, Federico Barbieri wrote: >> >I meant tomcat is a Component viewed from the kernel since implements >> >Block. But its a container of servlets. Now servlet are not Component >> >but still Tomcat should be a Container... that's way Container shouldn't >> >be Component container. >> >> okay - I don't thikn it is any more. Entry's contain Objects rather than >> Components and thus can follow any design pattern from >> EJB/servlet/mailet/Portlet/other. >> > >ok then why the Container must be a Component?
Mainly ease as Containers are almost universally placed in CMs it is easier to make them extend Component than have to futz with them later. >I can have a servlet that >"contains" others parts like Cocoon, Turbine etc. Why should they be >Component or at least be forced to use Components somewhere if they >don't want to? Ease of use. If you want to place something in the CM it must implement Component. Most Avalon based things use CM ... hence ;) Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
