Hi, Yes, I'd feel that it could end up being non-compliant and we might lose a bit on portability as well. Since an implementation could be reused across a bunch of components, having the componentType go after the component may not work.
I'd say that we leave the componentType resolution to the implementation types upto to locating and loading the resource as input stream after which the artifact processing can be done generically. - Venkat On 6/17/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm struggling with how to define and locate the .componentType side file in the implementation SPI. The assembly spec says: "A component type file has the same name as the implementation file but has the extension ".componentType"...The location of the component type file depends on the type of the component implementation..." (page 13 line 445). The problem is "the implementation file" is not specific enough and there isn't a standard way for the runtime to know which implementation attribute is the "implementation file". Eg, for implementation.java its the 'class' attribute, for implentation.script its the 'script' attribute, for implementation.das its the 'config' attribute etc. Any one have any ideas on how to do this? Would it be be terribly non-compliant if the default used by the runtime was "A component type file has the same name as the _component_ with the extension ".componentType"? ...ant
