For instance because the type of the objects returned from the factory includes the WriteProtectable interface explicitly.
:)
Anton, I can understand any frustration that you might be feeling. It is important to realize that we become very jealous of Avalon Framework. It HAS to work compatibly in all situations. We already have some cruft in there we would like to remove--but we can't due to backwards compatibility issues. As a result, we are generally very resistant to adding anything new to Framework.
If all three containers did the exact same things, then we might be a little bit more relaxed--but only a little. The thing is that all of the artifacts (the Context, Logger, ServiceManager, Configuration, Parameters, etc.) are all supposed to be read only. We all know that they need to be initially set up, so certain items have used the "makeReadOnly()" idiom that you see here.
Any time we add a new interface, we add a new contract. Contracts are heavy, so we try to avoid them unless they add more value than they cost.
In this particular case, the cost/benefit ratio is really not that favorable. I understand that you would like to have some central utils to refactor things a bit. However, most folks will be using the implementations of the artifacts we provide--so the benefits of having the interface and util go down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
