Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >BTW, wasn't there a discussion about renaming getComponent() to > >lookup()? > > > > > > Not that I know, but I like it as it's more consistent with > "plain old > Java" code. Now I think we should keep the "-Component" > suffix since the > cocoon object is more than a ServiceManager. > > So what about "lookupComponent()" ?
+1 Component is fine. lookup is better than get. But can we keep support for getComponent in the 2.1 branch? I think a lot of users already rely on it. Unico
