On Sunday 30 November 2003 22:58, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Wait for documentation and examples or take a look at the ones Steve
> has already referred to. It helped clarify a lot for me.
My opposition is not against the whole idea. I can appreciate that.
What I appreciate less, is that 45 framework
On Sunday 30 November 2003 20:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >Q: Is it used to instantiate all objects?
>
> No. Only objects that require a classloding context, parameterization,
> and a managed execution environment.
Ok, Again... You ARE limiting the Builder/Factory scope. I refuse to
acknowledg
I need to reply in smaller entities. (An I BUILD those entities with my
MailClient, Inferring does the "QUOTE" mechanism in a mail client be a
Builder???)
On Sunday 30 November 2003 20:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> More specifically - the builder provides:
>
> 1. importing of physical artifacts
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Niclas,
I think Steve's right about leaving these constructs generic because
their context depends on their use and the application space. I too
am very nit picky about names - I think Steve will agree to that since
I have bugged him several times about it. However because I did not
go as deep
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 17:45, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Both Builder and Factory are completely type neutral.
I disagree. It can't make coffee cups, motorbikes or potato chips.
It can if the artifact that is supplied references a factory that
instantiates coffee cu
On Sunday 30 November 2003 17:45, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Both Builder and Factory are completely type neutral.
I disagree. It can't make coffee cups, motorbikes or potato chips.
> This is
> specifically to allow the management of factories by a bootstrapping
> system that does not know abou
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Sunday 30 November 2003 16:59, Stephen McConnell wrote:
Builder builder = new DefaultBuilder( context, artifact );
Factory factory = builder.getFactory();
May I suggest that the Builder and Factory gets a bit more specific names?
Although packages helps the co
On Sunday 30 November 2003 16:59, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Builder builder = new DefaultBuilder( context, artifact );
> Factory factory = builder.getFactory();
May I suggest that the Builder and Factory gets a bit more specific names?
Although packages helps the compiler to separate differe
Have just committed a bunch of updates on the sandbox repository. These
updates are focussed on getting the API and SPI just right (leveraging
trials with the embedded Merlin scenario).
The embedding approach looks like the following:
//
// create the initial repository context during which
mcconnell2003/11/30 00:49:32
Modified:repository README.TXT
repository/site/xdocs/about/api artifact.xml classloader.xml
index.xml repository.xml
repository/site/xdocs/start/install cvs.xml
Log:
Site documentation updates.
Re
mcconnell2003/11/30 00:11:37
Modified:repository platform.xml
repository/impl/src/java/org/apache/avalon/repository/impl
DefaultCacheManager.java DefaultFactory.java
DefaultRepository.java RepositoryCriteria.java
mcconnell2003/11/29 23:06:36
Modified:kernel/test/src/test/org/apache/avalon/merlin
MerlinEmbeddedTest.java
Log:
Sync. with argument order changes in repo.
Revision ChangesPath
1.8 +6 -15
avalon-sandbox/kernel/test/src/test/org/apache/av
mcconnell2003/11/29 23:06:10
Modified:repository/main/src/java/org/apache/avalon/repository/main
DefaultBuilder.java DefaultInitialContext.java
Log:
Switch argument order in DefaultInitialContext.
Revision ChangesPath
1.2 +2 -11
avalon-s
14 matches
Mail list logo
