Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>
>> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Leo Sutic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>>> To be concrete, this is the Cocoon Context:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nicola, I do not understand what you're getting at.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm just telling you what Cocoon uses as a Context *now*.
>> It's just a fact.
>>
>> What I would like is to see suggestions from you on how it should be
>> done instead, or if it's ok as-is.
>>
>>>> My point is that if the context is only constants that
>>>> are entered by an assembler (a person), then it is not
>>>> different from a Configuration.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And the Cocoon one is not entered by an assembler.
>> It contains also params that change *per request*.
>>
>>> Disagree - a configuration is an object model that provides access to
>>> basic types (Strings, booleans, long, int, etc.). It has no support
>>> for complex types (e.g. java.io.File). A context object created
>>> using directives prepared by an assembler can contain directives for
>>> the creation of basic AND complex types (see earlier example and
>>> ContextFactory source). I can write directives for creation of
>>> objects with multiple argument constructors - which basically means
>>> that minimal effort is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what happens now, but IMHO it's not a definition of what a
>> context should do (and I don't think you were giving a definition BTW ;-)
>>
>> Can you guys please tell me what you would do for the CocoonContext or
>> you don't have a clue?
>>
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=102562981120502&w=2
I recieved the mail late 8-)
Thank you for the reply :-)
--
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]>
