Robert Mouat wrote: > <rant subject="Assembler as God"> <snip/> > </rant>
trying to pull something constructive from my previous rant... Things I'd like: 1. the ability for the same implementation class to be used as more than one component (e.g. with different configuration). 2. the piece of mind to be able to write a component and not worry about name space clashes when looking up roles -- allowing me use generic role names -- or in the case of (1) above - where it is likely that different components from the same class will request the same role, but should be given different components. 3. The ability to request role names passed in with the configuration - trusting that the assembler has control of both the configuration and the lookup (so can match the role name with the appropiate component). Item 3 could be done using hints (but probably not 2). However 1, 2 and 3 could be achieved if the assembler is given the ability to define a mapping of role names to components for each client. So I'd like to suggest that this ability be part of the framework - i.e. state that containers should give assemblers this ability (so that component writers can feel confident that when writing code that assumes 2 and 3 they are not sacrificing reusuability). Something like: "Component writers may assume that a container will give the assembler the ability to specify (uniquely for each client) which component will be returned whenever a role is looked up. Further a component may receive role names via the configuration." Finally I'd also like: 4. metadata be optional. (relying on the assembler if it is missing). (but that's mainly because I'm lazy). Robert. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
