On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 03:52, David Weitzman wrote: > This is just something to consider. > > I've noticed that kernal.xml and assembly config files express similar > information, but use a different format (<component> nested in <embeddor> > vs. <block>). One is parsed by DefaultEmbeddor, the other by Assembler. > > There are some distinct differences. <component> allows you to specify and > object's role, whereas dependancies in <block>s use bock names and > <provide> to add stuff to the ServiceManager. Assembler is also tied to > the .sar format. > > But overall, basically, the files are similar. Is this a bad thing, good > thing, or just a thing?
At the moment it is just a thing. Note that kernel.xml also allows you to specify configuration data in xml rather than separately (ie in SAR-INF/config.xml). In the future I think it would be desirable that the format become a lot more homogenized. When we get around to implementing http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12411 I hope we will find a format that is consistent and easy to use. Eventually I believe that the kernel will be just a container that hosts other containers. So the deployment format of the kernel will hopefully endup being very similar to the deployment format of applications. -- Cheers, Peter Donald ----------------------------------------------------- When a stupid man is doing something he's ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. George Bernard Shaw ----------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
