> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February, 2002 18:00
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface
>
>
> 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.
I'm happy.
+1
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
