I probably didn't express myself correctly ;-) I didn't say the string role was not necessary, I'm saying it's redundant when the role itself corresponds to an interface. I can implement a single class implementing a bunch of interfaces, each corresponding to a given role, can't I?
Plus tasks/types will soon be only different in the sense that tasks have an execute method, right? Forcing roles to map to an interface is probably a *good* idea! Every single bean would become implicitly a data-type, and the ones with an execute() method implicitly become tasks. Beyond that, all other roles are interfaces. What's wrong with that? --DD -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 10:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: antlib On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If everything is defined as a component at a low level, then they > can be easily introspected to find out what interfaces components > implement. This breaks down if there is no specific interface for a role - like task or data-type. And also doesn't address things that can be in multiple roles. At least for task I'd expect some strong opposition against an interface that marks them up. Hi Costin ;-) Stefan
