On 8/14/06, Abe White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ConfigurationProviders don't know anything about >> PersistenceProviders, >> of course, and need to be constructible via a no-args constructor. >> But >> maybe the PersistenceProviderImpl could populate the >> ConfigurationProvdierImpl with information about which subclass of >> PersistenceProviderImpl it should succeed for. I've come up with the beginnings of an idea of how to fix this. The idea ties in nicely with something else I've been wanting to do for a while, which is get rid of ConfigurationProviders as a service, and do everything through ProductDerivations. If no one has any objections, I can play around with this later in the week.
This sounds good since I was wondering how these two services fit together. Can you shed some more light on how you plan to resolve this? Thanks, Kevin
