> Can someone to a newbie check on "You get your *Components* from > the *Service*Locator"? > > I was against ServiceLocator not because I didn't see Components > as being/providing a service, but if we are talking about > Components, then we should apply that name throughout.
I didn't mean to say I'd like the ServiceLocator name for getting Components. As a newbie, I completely agree that Components should come from a ComponentLocator. I just used the XXXLocator to follow suit with the mail I was responding to. > The ????????? was called XXXXXManager or "factory" in our previous > discussion. If it's already been discussed, I don't mean to bring up an old topic or start any intense debates, but if a XxxManager is pretty much the same as an XxxFactory, I think newbies would "get" the name XxxFactory much more quickly as it's common. Though I'll admit that most Factory implementations don't have a release method, so if that's your reason for using the Manager name instead of Factory, I can see the motivation. Though I don't necessarily think you have to use the Manager name to get the point across that's it not a pure Factory implementation. (I'm assuming a lot here, so just dismiss my arguments if I'm wrong.) - Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
