Unico Hommes wrote: > > > > > > Yes, that's true as well - sigh. I thought this context is > > only available to tree processor components, but it seems > > that you're right and this context is passed down to all components. > > > > The same goes for the ServiceManager. It currently exposes all > components within a sitemap container, which means sitemap components > can potentially access ProcessNodes. We will need some kind of > insulation between the nodes and the components. If we do it so they run > inside separate containers the Context issue will go away too. > > > Is there any good way to pass down information to the > > different tree nodes during processing time? > > Alternatively, since running two different containers may be more > expensive -and not absolutely neccesary because ServiceManager isolation > can be achieved within the same container - we could define a lifecycle > extension for ProcessingNodes in order to pass in static settings. > Yes, I thought of that as well, but I think it's not really better as any component could implement the lifecycle interface as well and get the processor using this route. Although it's not as convenient as using the context, I think it's not really a difference.
I haven't thought very well about it, but would it really work with a separate container for the treeprocessor? Some nodes need to lookup sitemap components and the sitemap components need to lookup other components. So, I think, this only works, if the tree container is a child of the "sitemap components" container. Does this work or do I oversee something? Carsten
