On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 00:19, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Stephen McConnell said: > > This is why I would "promote" the solution of setAbc() for > dependency resolution and a more generic lookup() for service > discovery. > > Niclas
There's no reason we can't have multiple dependency resolution schemes. For example, we could support all three IoC types (as defined by the PicoContainer project). I do something like that in my JingDAO project already. This would also allow us to better support: - older Avalon components - traditional JavaBeans - Pico-style components One issue would be determining which dependency scheme to use. It could potentially be done dynamically by first trying the contructor, then any bean properties and finally via the service() method. The meta-info might also be able to store this information, but I would like it to be as automagical as possible, making it easier for component writers. In the end though, you'll still be stuck with older Avalon components which use the service manager for both dependencies and discovery. I personally would like to see the service manager used more for discovery than dependency resolution. I'm working on some ideas for this now -- should have something a little more concrete tomorrow. Any other thoughts or comments would be appreciated. -- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
