> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thursday 29 January 2004 05:49, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > I propose to:
> >
> > 1. add the following MutableConfiguration interface to framework
> > (see below).
> >
> > 2. Add the getMutableChild and getMutableChildren methods to
> > the DefaultConfiguration class.
> >
> > 3. Have DefaultConfiguration implement the MutableConfiguration
> > interface.
> >
> > +1 from me.
>
> I vote "No".
I take that as a -1 VETO.
> Why should the component be allowed to change its
> configuration object?
This has ***never*** been proposed. Nowhere have I *ever* stated
that the MutableConfiguration should be passed in to the
Component in the configure method, nor that it should be
part of the Configurable contract, or any lifecycle contract
at all.
In my original argument for this interface, I specifically
state that this is ***NOT*** part of the proposal. If we,
sometime in the future would like to pass in MutableConfigurations
instead of Configurations, we sure can vote about that, but
for now that's simply not an issue.
Argument is here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=107485031403277&w=2
> "Here you go Mr Component, I have provided this for you, now
> live with it!"
"Here you go Mr Component, fill in your current configuration
here."
Scribble scribble scribble...
"Thank you Mr Component."
> Is it implied that the Container MUST, SHOULD or CAN persist
> that between JVM invocations?
Since it isn't part of any contract in framework, the container
can do as it pleases.
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
