Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>>From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>
>>>to pass information on which a reasonably elegant message can be
>>>generated on a remote system. This message is outside any logging
>>>context and naming strucrture implied by a containment hierachy.
>>>Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>Ok. That is a compelling enough reason.
>
>
> Should that really be passed in via the context? I'd prefer a
> configuration entry or:
>
> public interface Nameable {
> public void setName (String name);
> }
-1. While such a solution could be hacked together using extensions,
we shouldn't clutter an already detailed lifecycle with something as
trivial as this. It is perfectly acceptable for the name to be
propogated using the Context object. Stephen's argument is strong
enough to include it in the Context object, but not strong enough
to add yet another lifecycle interface for a component.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
