Then IIUYC the service you're talking about (let's call it BeanFactory) would be a factory service implementing ServiceImplementationFactory. Thus, by the user only used inside module descriptors. This would certainly be useful.
The service I was trying to describe (let's call it ServiceInjector) would be yet another service responsible for the actual dependency injection. It could be injected into BuilderFactory and BeanFactory, which would use it to implement the autowiring. In addition to that users could have ServiceInjector injected into their own service implementations, where they'd be able to use it to autowire any objects being constructed. Would that make sense? --knut On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:57:48 -0400, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we could have a service and configuration. The configuration > contributions look much like the <construct> parameter to > BuilderFactory. The service simply allows access to beans specified > inside. > > Because there aren't proxies for beans, we'll have to be extra careful > to detect dependency cycles between beans. > > In addition, we could define a ObjectProvider for prefix bean: > (perhaps that will be the only way to access such beans?) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
