Stephen McConnell wrote:


Thinking about management of ECM/Fortress semantics ...


In an excalibur logger test case there is the following code fragment:

  tc = (TestComponent)lookup( TestComponent.ROLE + "/A" );
  tc.test( getLogEnabledLogger(), "Test log entry A" );

The class in question extends the excalibur component testcase which is applying ECM semantics on service lookup. In this example the string 'TestComponent.ROLE + "/A"' maps to a "role" name which in turn maps to a named component.

Actually that is Fortress semantics, but anyway I digress....



If I ignore the mapping - is it save to assume that any "string" passed to an ECM/Fortress service or component manager (with the exception of <something>/Selector ) can be be mapped directly to a declaration of @avalon.dependency key=<value> where <value> is the result of the TestComponent.ROLE + "/A" construction?



Yes. (The selector variation is <something>Selector, note the lack of the separating "/").

--

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
 deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                - Benjamin Franklin


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to