Oh, yeah. It seems that I ran across this explanation a while back... Must have forgot. I just like the name ComponentManager better :)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Farr, Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Avalon Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: RE: ServiceManager and ComponentManager > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonathan Hawkes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:34 AM > > To: Avalon Developers List > > Subject: ServiceManager and ComponentManager > > > > Hey all! > > > > Just a question out of curiosity. Why is ComponentManager deprecated? It > > appears that the only difference between the Component* API and the > > Service* API is the name. So, why is "service" a better name for a > > component? > > > > Thanks! > > Jonathan Hawkes > > Couple reasons, but most of it boils down to 'marker interfaces'. Under the > ComponentManager scheme any component had to inherit the 'Component' > interface, whereas under the ServiceManager design no such restriction was > imposed. This change makes it much easier to reuse or migrate existing code > into an Avalon based architecture. > > Along with 'Component', during the ECM deprecation process, other marker > interfaces like 'ThreadSafe' were also removed. Point is, there's no reason > to have marker interfaces. They add unnecessary contracts to the code and > can be easily replaced with a bit of meta-data. > > J. Aaron Farr > SONY ELECTRONICS > DDP-CIM > (724) 696-7653 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
