*snip*
>
>I agree with the idea, but people will have to migrate to
>using the new
>component factory rather than doing CreateObject directly.
>
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Pretty much everything
that needs to be loaded is loaded at application start up and lives in the
application scope. When you need to use it in your code you just need to
reference the copy in application scope rather than creating a new instance.
>The component factory will also need a programmatic interface
>to setting
>component extensions, for e.g.:
>application.comFactory.setComponent("core.com.path","new.com.path");
>
I don't think so.
I see this more like the custom admin xml file. There isn't a programmatic
way to modify that because it really doesn't change apart from during the
development of a project. I think the component registry would be the same.
>A separate component should be responsible for loading the XML
>file and
>making the relevant calls to the comFactory to set the
>project's extensions.
>
I'd have all of this happen in the application initialization code in
farcry_core.
Essentially replace all the try/catch blocks that check for custom
components with some code that reads the xml file and checks to see if a
custom component has been defined.
Spike
---
You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
