Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, 13 February, 2002 17:17
>>To: Avalon Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface
>>
>>
>>Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>
>>>Berin:
>>>
>>>Paul's vote on the ComponentManager interface proposal brings
>>>the number of +1 votes to 3, sufficient to go ahead with the
>>>ServiceManager proposal. Your reply on the initial request for
>>>vote was somewhat unclear with respect your position. If I
>>>understand correctly, you stated that in principal you would
>>>be -1 on anything not linked to Avalon 5.0. As the proposal
>>>is not linked to Avalon 5.0, can you clarify for me if your
>>>message should be counted as a veto. If not, I'll go ahead
>>>a commit the proposed service package this afternoon.
>>>
>>>Cheers, Steve.
>>>
>>
>>Another alternative to the whole explicit Query object is the following:
>>
>>interface ServiceManager
>>{
>> Object lookup( String role );
>> Object lookup( String role, Parameters attributes );
>> void release( Object component );
>>}
>>
>
> Of the above options I think the interface described immediately
> above makes the most sense. Its consistent with the CM/SM model
> and the DefaultServiceManager can basically ignore the Parameters
> argument, however, it does provide the basis on which an
> implementation can do some serious resolution.
>
If we like the above ServiceManager interface, then I am +1 on that
interface. At this point I would not need the Query object as the
Parameters/Role combo satisfies that need.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
