Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>Nothing wrong with Fortress. :-) I am playing around with it
>>some. But
>>I do have a bunch of
>>code which is written to use the ECM along with the Selectors.
>>Fortress doesn't support
>>selectors, so that code would have to be rewritten.
>>
>>
>
>Nope, that's where your wrong. Fortress will give you a selector if
>you ask for the MyComponent.ROLE + "Selector" ending.
>
>If there are multiple components that implement the same interface,
>and you don't ask for a "Selector" it will return the default. The
>default is the first component read from the config file, unless you
>specify default="true" as an attribute of the component config element.
>
Great, glad to hear it is in there. I'll give it a try.
>>While all that is happening, the tried and true ECM is there.
>>
>>
>
>The soon-to-be-retired ECM. All of this "mudslinging" is to get
>the correct meta model so that all components are implemented and
>described the same way--regardless of the container that is using
>it. Fortress is very similar to ECM in the way components are
>described--with a few subtle differences. Merlin is more similar
>to the Phoenix way of doing things. Anytime we need to converge
>on standards things get heated.
>
Heated discussions are good. A lot of good ideas usually come out of
people being
forced things out well enough to get everyone to agree. But for a
couple of days, there
was not a lot more than fighting. That is what I was referring to.
Anyway. It looks like
it has passed.
>>Sounds good, but it is not going to happen on the project I
>>am working on right now. Next project sure. It is going to
>>have to be around for a while. It is still the main CM
>>in the latest released
>>version of Avalon.
>>
>>
>
>Yep. We are nearing the place where that will no longer be true.
>
Ok, I'll go in and take a closer look.
Cheers,
Leif
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
