> -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Tagunov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: den 4 februari 2004 12:52 > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re[2]: MutableConfiguration > > > Come on guys, be nice! :-) > > > LSU> MutableConfiguration ... to plug what ... a hole in > LSU> the Avalon architecture - that we had no interface abstraction > LSU> for DefaultConfiguration. > > Do you feel there's same hole also with > > * DefaultServiceManager > * DefaultContext > > I would say yes.
On those two we may have promised some things that makes an abstraction harder. For example, while a Configuration only stores primitive values and strings (boolean, int, float, String), a Context can + be cast-able to a container-specifc context interface + contain much more complex objects See the Javadocs for Context to see what we have promised so far. What it means is that instead of a "MutableContext" we may want to call it "MutableBasicContext". For ServiceManager, it would be MutableBasicServiceManager. Looking at Merlin, while it is easy to figure out how to get things out of a SM, the semantics of putting stuff *into* it may be a bit harder, since the things you put in (components) are managed, proxied etc. etc., while the values you put into a configuration are immutable and just held. That said, I'd be +1 to plugging those holes as well (if they can be plugged). /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
