Jonathan Hawkes wrote on Friday, November 14, 2003 5:47 PM:
> Oh, yeah. It seems that I ran across this explanation a
> while back... Must have forgot. I just like the name
> ComponentManager better :)
The real confusing issue IMHO is, that anyboday here talks of components (recognize
the lo
]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: ServiceManager and ComponentManager
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jonathan Hawkes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:34 AM
> > To: Avalon Developers List
> >
The ComponentXXX interfaces return objects implementing Component, while
the ServiceXXX interfaces just return Object. Means that you don't have
to implement Component all the time.
When we decided that Component was unneccessary and unwanted, we
couldn't
change the ComponentXXX interfaces as the
Jonathan Hawkes wrote:
Just a question out of curiosity. Why is ComponentManager
deprecated? It appears that the only difference between the
Component* API and the Service* API is the name. So, why is
"service" a better name for a component?
There's another (the only real) difference: ComponentM
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Hawkes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:34 AM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: ServiceManager and ComponentManager
>
> Hey all!
>
> Just a question out of curiosity. Why is Compo
Hey all!
Just a question out of curiosity. Why is ComponentManager deprecated? It appears
that the only difference between the Component* API and the Service* API is the name.
So, why is "service" a better name for a component?
Thanks!
Jonathan Hawkes
