Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>>BTW there is not a chance that I would suggest that you directly
>>>extract a
>>>resource directly from a ComponentManager. That would suck
>>
>>unbelievably,
>>
>>>would never scale and lead to all sorts of design
>>
>>compromises. You aquire a
>>
>>>SocketManager who does the work.
>>
>>?
>>
>>If my component is Composable, I get a ComponentManager, not a
>>SocketManager.
>>I don't want to make a SocketManager.
>>I want to use a pre-built Manager.
>
>
>
> Nicola, that is Peter's point.
>
> Your example of
>
> Socket sock = (Socket) cm.lookup("SSL");
>
> was flawed.
>
> The ComponentManager/ComponentLocater returns a SocketManager or
> something along those lines. Therefore, the proper example would
> be:
>
> SocketManager sm = (SocketManager) cm.lookup("sockets");
> Socket sock = sm.getSSLSocket();
>
> Or something of that nature.
This is exactly the point.
I'm used to requesting components, not managers.
It's in the name: ComponentLocator, not ComponentManagerLocator.
Not that I mean that any of the two is better, personally it's the same,
but maybeI don't fully understand, because the the SocketManager looks
like a Selector...
Or does it mean that it's just container chaining/hierarchy?
If it's a hierarchy, then the Selector is basically a single simple
child componentmanager, as hints are single simple metadata.
Is this correct?
But then, is it correct that lookup(xxx) gives me a manager or a
component? I thought that this was not nice, but maybe I didn't get the
issue.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
