The document
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/phoenix/guide-example-configuration.html
contains a description of how to handle this inside Phoinix.
Cheers, Steve.
Andrei Ivanov wrote:
>Hi,
>I came across with simple problem (I think it is simple for experienced
>Avalon developers) with my Phoenix-based application.
>
>The problem is as follows:
>I have phoenix service which contract is defined in interface
>
>A. ServiceInterface
>
>I have two different block which offer service A (in other words different
>implementation for the same service):
>
>Blocks
>B. offers A
>C. offers A
>
>B and C should be configured and initialized differently as well as they
>will depend on different services.
>
>I would like to be able to specify which block will be used (B or C) to
>provide service A changing only configuration (config.xml) file.
>Can anyone give me example how to achieve that and what is the standard
>practice for Phoenix-based application for this?
>
>Regards,
>Andrei
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Royal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:44 PM
>Subject: Re: Constraints on dependencies
>
>
>
>
>>On Thursday 06 June 2002 07:43 pm, Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. Are constraints container specific or not?
>>>2. Is there a subset of constraints that are container agnostic?
>>>3. How do we represent constraints in the system? An opaque string? A
>>>Configuration tree? An XPath expression?
>>>4. Do the providers or the Kernel validate the constraints?
>>>5. Do the providers get informed that they must conform to certain
>>>constraints?
>>>6. Does validation occur at initialization time or assembly time?
>>>
>>>My answers would be;
>>>
>>>
>>1. Sometimes. I haven't seen any container-specific examples yet though ;)
>>2. Yes. Mainly anything that involves lookup( ROLE ), ie. component
>>
>>
>assembly
>
>
>>3. XPath or other evaluated expression :)
>>4. Kernel
>>5. No, but there may be cases where they need to be queried by the kernel
>>
>>
>for
>
>
>>constraint resolution (like the ORB example. the kernel will most likely
>>
>>
>be
>
>
>>unaware that its ORB component hosts others)
>>6. Both. As much as possible should be done at assembly, but I'm sure some
>>must be defered to init time.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The problem is basically that in some cases it is going to be
>>>
>>>
>practically
>
>
>>>impossible for kernel to validate the constraint unless the provider
>>>conforms to very specific contracts or is self validating.
>>>
>>>
>>I agree. I'd opt more for the "specific contracts" option, which could be
>>
>>
>as
>
>
>>easy as exposing MetaInfo classes.
>>-pete
>>
>>--
>>peter royal -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>--
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>
>>
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>
>>
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
