On 2010-07-07 13.34, Edward Yakop wrote:
In general, to keep things aligned with DCI, I think I'd prefer "withRoles" instead of "withAbilities" as previously discussed. What do you think?It feels more natural in terms of UL. Do you think that we needs to stop at withMixins() ? How do we address "For some roles, we would need x Concerns and x Side-effects to be declared?"
I think this will be orthogonal to the already existing functionality. We already have ability to declare additional concerns, side-effects and mixin implementations. All we need is to be able to add more interfaces (=roles) that we want the composite to implement.
So the main difference is that when we resolve the composite, instead of just implementing the composite type, we also add the additionally declared roles, and then the usual algorithms for selecting mixin, concerns and side-effects apply.
/Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
