Peter Donald wrote: > > At 02:46 27/2/01 -0800, Federico Barbieri wrote: > >Peter Donald wrote: > >> > >> At 12:59 27/2/01 -0800, Federico Barbieri wrote: > >> >I meant tomcat is a Component viewed from the kernel since implements > >> >Block. But its a container of servlets. Now servlet are not Component > >> >but still Tomcat should be a Container... that's way Container shouldn't > >> >be Component container. > >> > >> okay - I don't thikn it is any more. Entry's contain Objects rather than > >> Components and thus can follow any design pattern from > >> EJB/servlet/mailet/Portlet/other. > >> > > > >ok then why the Container must be a Component? > > Mainly ease as Containers are almost universally placed in CMs it is easier > to make them extend Component than have to futz with them later. >
"almost universaly"... I totally agree all abstract classes in camelot should implements Component so they are ready to use in all component aware enviroments. But contaier interfaces shouldn't. BTW what's the difference between Info and MetaInfo? I thought were the same and I removed Info but before you get pissed off :-)... I'm ready to restore it if there is a good explanation. Fede
