Yep, you're right. However, to have a ReferenceDefinition with a reference
target but not a binding, I would have to create a new spi.model class.
Unless it has a big impact on, for instance, the loader code, it would be
nice if we could say that a ReferenceDefinition _can_ have a target URI but
it does not have to. I have not delved into the loader code enough to tell
whether its worth the class savings. So let me know whether you think it
would or would not work.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Composite references - wiring and model and runtime
representations
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
One more thing. AIUI, the assembly spec defines a <service/> element as
containing a required reference URI. This means that getTarget and
setTarget really belong in spi.model.ServiceDefinition and not just in
BoundServiceDefinition. So unless there are any objections, I'll promote
these methods to ServiceDefinition.
That's for a <service> definition in a composite but not in the component
type. I it seems like the issue we are running into is it depends on how
you look at things.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
