On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:21, Stephen McConnell wrote: > >It must be possible for those constriants to be declared by component who > >needs them and then if the container understands constriant it must be > > able to validate this somehow. > > Specifically - (a) composer aggregates constraints from possibly > multiple component meta declarations, (b) composer creates dependent > component/s and supplied constraint/s as part of lifecycle/lifestyle > processing, (c) container handles constraint validation (d) composer > supplies assembled container to the target component. > > Where composer == Merline/Phoenix/... > Container == any composite component (e.g. an ORB) > Component == the thing declaring the dependecy constraints
Thats diferent from what I am thinking atm. Using my own terminology cause yours sucks ;) Component A = thing declaring dependencies Component B = a composite component that A depends upon Constraint x, y, z = Constraints that A requires from B Kernel = Merlin/Phoenix The process would be; * Kernel creates B and does its lifecycle stuff * Kernel creates A * Kernel checks to see if B satisfies constraints x, y and z * Kernel sets up A using service B Note that at no point was B informed that it had to satisfy constraints x, y, z - that is part of assemblers job to get right, not developers job IMHO. Thus it becomes up to container to interpret/validate constraints and up to assembler to assemble an application correctly. Basically comes back to my dislike of putting assembly information in the BlockInfo files. -- Cheers, Peter Donald -------------------------------------------------- "An intellectual is someone who has been educated beyond their intelligence." -------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
