> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antti Koivunen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February, 2002 06:45
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface
>
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> <skip/>
> >
> > interface ServiceManager
> > {
> > Object lookup( final String role );
> > Object lookup( final String role, Map policy );
> >
> > boolean hasService( final String role );
> > boolean hasService( final String role, Map policy ); <--
> addition ?
> >
> > void release( Object key );
> > }
> >
> > The addition of hasXxxxx( key, policy ) ensures that your not going
> > on a blind date.
>
> I agree, it's more consistent and required for something like:
>
> map.put("mime-type", "video/mpeg");
> boolean ok = sm.hasService(Codec.ROLE, map);
>
> There are many other cases where the policy/hint would just be a simple
> string. As the use of a Map has some performance implications, I might
> consider adding also:
>
> Object lookup( String role, String hint );
> boolean hasService( String role, String hint );
>
> The hint could be something simple, such as a mime-type, protocol or
> URL, but it would also allow the use of string queries, if necessary.
>
> What do you think?
Ummmm,... I'd like to avoid the additional methods if possible. The
fundamently attractive thing about the whole of the Avalon Framework
is this amazing combination of simplicity and functionality. Maybe I'm
being over-sensertive but I'm very aware of the fact that we are have
already almost doubled the number of operations relative to CM - which
leaves me with the question - can you do without it?
Cheers, Steve.
> (: A ;)
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
