> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: den 12 juni 2002 15:18
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Summary] Avalon 5 ComponentManager interface
>
>
> Leo Sutic wrote:
> >
> > I agree completely.
> >
> > In my summary, I define Type 1 and Type 2,3 components.
> >
> > The Type 1 components are *always* thread safe. Always, always,
> > always. You *never* *ever* get a factory.
> >
> > Types 2 and 3 may or may not be threadsafe -> you *always* get a
> > factory. If the impl is threadsafe you get a factory anyway!
> >
> Ah, thanks for clarifying this - I think now I got it!
>
> > Basically, the presence/absence of a factory is defined by the
> > component interface. So if you code against the interface, you will
> > *always* get it right. Just like now. The only difference
> is that you
> > will lookup() the factories in compose() and then use them
> instead of
> > going to the ComponentManager.
> >
> Ok, I understand this issue - but - sorry - I don't see the
> advantage. In my opinion it gets more complicated as I first
> have to be aware of this distinction and on the other hand
> the configuration gets more complicated.
Carsten,
you are right - everything gets a little bit more complicated.
But you can easily simplify it with a "golden hammer" solution.
As my example shows, just add one attribute to each component
declaration, and reshuffle your code a little teensy weensy bit,
and you will have the same usage pattern over and over again.
Just like now. There won't be 10000 usage patterns.
I agree - I do not consider this optimal for my usage, but
I think it is the best compromise.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
