On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 06:21, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote, On 10/07/2003 5.43: > > ... > > Looking from 10,000 feet, what is then the difference between an "object" > > residing in Context and one that can be looked up in the ServiceManager??
The difference is lifecycle and lifestyle management. Objects from the ServiceManager are guaranteed to go through the proper lifecycle and have proper lifestyle management. You have no such promise for Context values. > > In reality, if I have well understood, the Context in Avalon means > ContainerServices. They are all the services that are exposed by the > container itself and not the Components it assembles. > > But Fortress exposes some of its services as Components IIUC... so do we > really need a Context? Taking in Berin's comments as well, I think we find that for Avalon5 we perhaps do NOT need a Context as long as we have a sufficiently intelligent lookup scheme. For Avalon4, we've got one regardless. Just to make sure I'm following: Context key dependencies would be declared at the component/service meta-info level (via AMTAGS or .xinfo, .xservice files). These would use the urn scheme described by Berin. Context key values with "urn:avalon" would be declared at the container/kernel level (ie kernel.xml in merlin). These would be handled by the container itself in some way (perhaps via extensions). Context key values with "urn:my-app" would be declared at the block level and handled by some block level context extension. Does that seem correct? -- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
