Huang,
Huang Kai wrote:
I mean that composite A has a component which uses composite B as
an implementation and that composite B has a component which uses
composite A as an implementation .
I think this use case is fairly common, eg. [Employee] has a property refer to
[Company] and [Company] has a property refer to it's [Employee]s. And when
these two java components are in different composites, I'll have to define
mutual referenced composite files above.
Aaargh - this is the case that I was worrying about.
OK - what you need to understand here is that using a composite to
implement a component within a higher level composite is *NOT* a
reference property.
Using something as an implementation is a STRUCTURAL relationship. It
means that the implementation is "part of" the containing composite.
Now if you view it that way, then it does *NOT* make sense for a Company
to be "built from" employees and then for the employees to be "built
from" a company. That is what your use case is like.
It's OK for a "Company" component to have a reference to an "Employee"
component - but a reference is not the implementation of a component -
it is a dependency that one component has on another.
Does that make sense?
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
