Hi there,
I'd like to get one thing cleared out: what is the conceptual difference
between ServiceManager and ComponentManager? AIU, ServiceManager
surfaced as a backwards compatible replacement for ComponentManager.
AFAIK, they are both mainly about:
"Find me a component/service/object that matches the
specified role, i.e. implements certain interface."
I can imagine the implementation and configuration being almost
identical, so (why) do we actually need both?
(: A ;)
Stephen McConnell wrote:
<skip/>> 1. ServiceManager
> - this is relatively stable relative to yesterdays
> discussions
> - last nights input raised the need for a parallel
> hasXxxx operation that takes a Map as an additional
> argument - paralleling lookup(String, Map )
> semantics
>
> interface ServiceManager
> {
> Object lookup( String role );
> Object lookup( String role, Map policy );
> boolean hasService( String role );
> boolean hasService( String role, Map policy );
> void release( Object key );
> }
>
> 2. ComponentManager
> - resurfacing of CM has been driven by what appears to be
> separation of concerns between service decommissioning
> as distinct from needs of referenced managed component
> (hence the appearance of Object as token in the interface
> below)
> - this is being discussed as a complementary interface to
> the ServiceManger described above
>
> interface ComponentManager
> {
> Object lookup( Object token, String role );
> Object lookup( Object token, String role, Map policy );
> boolean hasComponent(Object role );
> void release( Object component );
> void releaseAll( Object token );
> }
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
