Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>Leo Sutic wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It would appear that context values entered as you describe
>>>
>>>
>>are limited
>>
>>
>>>to:
>>>
>>>+ constants
>>>
>>>+ entered by a human
>>>
>>>Is this correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Umm, lets say that I don't agree with te question! :-)
>>If when you say "entered by a human" you mean that the critea for
>>context creation and the criteria for creation of context
>>values must be
>>presented in a declarative manner - e.g. in an application
>>profile - I
>>would say YES - IF, and only if the developer is writting a component
>>that is intended to be portable.
>>
>>
>
>But then, for all portable components you are blurring the line between
>a Context and a Configuration, and then I do not see the need to declare
>a context requirement in the xinfo at all:
>
>
I don't understand why you have that conclusion.A configuration object
is just that - its a hierachical structure of strings. A client
application can use a configuration to get basic types (providing the
client application has explicit knowlege of the configuration
structure). Context object are totally different - context objects hold
Objects whereas configuration holds Strings. This means that the
context values can be of any type. This is not the case for configuration.
> + If the component is portable, there's really no difference between
> Context and Configuration, so no portable component implements
>Contextualizable.
>
No - no - no !!!!!
Context contains objects. There is nothing that I am saying that
restricts a context in the way your suggesting.
Cheers, 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]>
