> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Anton Tagunov" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> class MyContainerExtension implements ContainerExtension
> {
> public amendConfig( MutableConfiguration node )
> {
> MutableConfigration b1 = node.createChild( "b" );
> b1.setValue( 1 );
> MutableConfiguratin b2 = node.createChild( "b" );
> b2.setValue( 2 );
> }
> }
>
> this way MyContainerExtension has not dependency on _any_
> configuration implementation. And the tree is homogenous.
I see your issue. Yet couldn't you resolve this by using your
MutableConfigurationFactory to change the above method to:
class MyContainerExtension implements ContainerExtension
{
public amendConfig( MutableConfiguration node )
{
MutableConfigration b1 = m_mcf.newInstance("b");
b1.setValue( 1 );
MutableConfiguratin b2 = m_mcf.newInstance("b");
b2.setValue( 2 );
}
}
I suppose part of the issue is that DefaultConfiguration does not have a
createChild() method and doesn't really need one since it's a concrete
class. MutableConfiguration is an interface and thus a factory method to
create new instances of the implementation (without having to actually)
could be useful, but not absolutely required.
I'm a +0 on adding this to the interface.
J. Aaron Farr
SONY ELECTRONICS
DDP-CIM
(724) 696-7653
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
