> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Simons
>
> > public class MyComponent {
> >
> > /**
> > * @@Dependency
> > * @@RequireDependencyAttribute ( "standard" )
> > */
> > private OutputTarget standard;
>
> hmmmmmm.....potentially neat.....how feasible is it to run something
> like this in a J2EE or servlet container? And on second thought, this
> doesn't allow you to do any kind of validity checking in the
> component.
> Any kind of exception (likely, NPE) resulting from a
> composition error
> is not thrown during composition but on a method call. I think. Using
> aspectwerkz or somethin' one could advise the field access
> though.......
>
> oh, and (same point again)
>
> /** @@Dependency */
> private OutputTarget standard;
>
> is just a /little/ more neat I think. When we get the meta
> JSR stuff in
> place (like, in 4 years, when JDK1.5 is a realistic
> deployment target):
>
> private transient [Dependency] OutputTarget standard;
>
> could become a reality.
I think it all boils down to how much you want to specify in a
dependency.
If all you want is an OutputTarget (no other requirements), then yes,
/** @@Dependency */
private OutputTarget standard;
is definitely the way to go. But in the case of - for example - wanting
a
secure SocketFactory, or a error OutputTarget or some other dependency
that
can't be completely described just by giving the type, then there must
be
some way to add these other requirements. That's why I put in the
@@RequireDependencyAttribute ( "standard" )
in the example.
I'm against encoding requirements in the field name - just too high a
risk
of getting a namespace collision here...
Oh, and thanks for the comments!
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
