OK, I'll revert the change. Is there an easy way to do that in svn?
Cheers, On 06/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > Pete Robbins wrote: >> I think we should revert that change I made then but it would be nice >> to get >> it to compile on windows ;-) >> >> I'm still not happy with Composite constructor passing it's this >> pointer to >> it's parent ComponentType. Is this not wrong? Is it saying I am a >> Composite >> and I am contained in myself?? In this case is the ComponentType >> contained >> in the composite? I think not so instead of passing "this" to >> ComponentType >> constructor maybe "0" would be more appropriate? >> >> Am I making sense? >> >> Cheers, >> > > Yes, you're making sense :) > > Here's a few thoughts: > > 1) A composite is not contained in itself. > > 2) The SCA recursive composition, where: "composite A contains a > component B" and "component B is an instance of a composite C" does > not imply containment. In this example composite C is not contained in > B. C could be used to create components in other composites D, E, F. C > is probably packaged and installed separately from A. > > 3) On the other hand, somebody could also nest composite C inside > composite A, zip A into A.zip and have C inside A.zip... Then we could > probably ask the question of containment... As far as I know the SCA > spec does not address all the packaging scenarios yet and doesn't > cover that. > > 4) Now a troubling thought (at least it troubles me): A componentType > uses interfaces and types, which are normally packaged in the > composite containing the componentType. This is easy for > componentTypes describing simple implementations (a script, a C++ > class etc.). Now a Composite is also a ComponentType, but it uses on > its services and references interfaces and types usually packaged > in... itself... Given that in most cases it'll need to share these > interfaces and types with other composites, there is probably > something wrong here, missing in the spec, and obviously missing in > our implementations... > > In doubt, since all these composites are contained in an SCA system, > I'd suggest we pass the pointer to the SCA system composite for now. > And 0 as you propose will probably work as well :) -- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Pete
