On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 17:40, Alex Karasulu wrote: > Sorry dude thought I had the dev list there. > ALex
No problem. I have a couple questions though. What do you mean by "say no"? Are we going to change all excalibur components which have it? Are we going to put disclaimers in the documentation that say "don't do it this way"? Or modify all documentation? The ROLE thing was really just a shorthand, a shortcut. In general it's equivalent to MyService.class.getName(); or the fully qualified classname of the service in question. This was perhaps more important in the ECM days, but in all three modern containers, the service name can be just about anything. If you're client component doesn't really care which implementation of a service it gets, using the service classname seems like a reasonable solution. It says to the container, "Look, just get me an implementation of this service." Also, it's one thing to get rid of the ROLE constant and just tell people to use MyService.class.getName(). It's another to suggest that the semantics for ServiceManager lookup need revised (they do, but it's a whole different issue) [1]. Don't want to cause any commotion, just want some clarification. -- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/avalon/ServiceManager --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
