Eung-ju Park wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:42 AM
>Subject: Re: PR9270
>
>
>
>
>>Should this be at the meta-data level (as your proposing) or the
>>meta-info level? I think it would be more appropriate for the
>>inforation to go into the blockinfo (in Phoenix) or as a component
>>attribute in the Type DTD.
>>
>>
>
>I think it it meta-data. It specified by assembler, not block developer.
>It is not about block it self. I think it is about block assembling.
>
The existace of a component that is itself a proxy is a developer
decision. For example, the org.omg.ORB class is a proxy to an
implementation. The Java VM handles the loading of the implemetation
class behind the scenes. But the developer needs to say to the
assembler - hey - watch out - this class is already a proxy.
Potentially, an assembler could be dealing with alternative
implentations of a particular service - one already a proxy, and another
an interface. Is there an issue for the assembler - or is this an issue
for the container? My feeling is that this is an issue between the
container and the componet - however, if it is an assembler issue, then
the question for the assemble is if a proxy class is allowed or not.
However, I doubt if this is a valid assembler question. The only thing
I can think of as an issue is if the class implements lifecyle
interfaces that could be potentially absused and as a result, raise a
security implication.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>--
>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]>
