> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 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.
OK, agree.
What I was thinking was that the name is only part of something
more - like a ContainerEntry or something. But then the ContainerEntry
would end up being the only object in the Context...
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
