The the title of this thread as Berin suggested.
Stephen Haberman wrote: >>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. > Actually, what Leo's saying makes a lot of sence. A5-ComponentLocator returns a component. That component can be anything. Leo's example is a component that implements the A4 ComponentManager interface (or something equivalent) and as such returns an object the implements the A4 Component interface (or equivalent). That means that a A4-A5 migration could be handled very easily because your changing one line of code in you component when invoking the lookup. The rest of the code base stays the same. Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
