> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:39, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > I recently added some code that wraps a ComponentManager and puts a > > ServiceManager fa�ade on it. I did the reverse process. > This allows > > a container that wants to use a parent XXXManager to pass in the > > parent regardless of whether we are using a ServiceManager > fa�ade or a > > ComponentManager fa�ade. > > > > It would probably be a good thing to have in Framework as a > > compatibility layer for that sort of thing. > > > > +1 from me. > > -1 > > I really don't see too much need for it. It will only clutter > up framework > more and it is not like it is hard to write. Less is more.
I ran into the need when I wanted to refactor SourceResolver. The problem is that the individual SoureFactories might be Serviceable or Composable. I want to be able to have the SourceResolver hold them internally, however if the SourceResolver is Serviceable it cannot use Composable factories. It would be *bad* to have to rely on Fortress just for those classes. What it does allow is for a smoother migration from one type to the other, while still providing for legacy components. If not in framework (and it is only two classes we are talking about here), then where? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
