Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Hi,sorry for the late response. An answer from Berin Loritsch got stuck in the moderation of this list. This is the answer from Berin: "Excalibur was designed around each component only knowing and being able to deal with their own information. It was a conscious design decision. There are ways around the model, but typically you have to mount the configuration tree to a JNDI context and load it when you need it. Another way to deal with the arbitrarily complex graph is to have multiple levels of Excalibur containers. Essentially you have a top level that manages the configuration and stands up the child Excalibur container that manages the graphs that you have set up. That is the way to do it that matches the design of the Excalibur framework."
Thanks. Although this does not sound unreasonable, I respect the Excalibur design, and we have found what I think is a better way. That is to simply give the component that contains the configuration editor a list of the roles of the components that can be reconfigured, and have it look them up one by one and ask them to report their individual configuration trees. Because it then has the association of references to configurations, if the user makes a change, it can be directly propagated to the correct component.
Best regards, John Collins
John E. Collins wrote:I have an application that builds an arbitrarily complex dependency graph among small analysis modules at runtime, using a a Configuration derived from the XML configuration file. Most of the modules are not Excalibur components, but are managed by a component, so all but the leaves of the graph are accessible through that component's Configuration. But there are other components, the leaves of the graph, that are separate Excalibur components, and whose dependencies are expressed in their individual Configuration trees. We want to make the configuration visible and modifiable at runtime, which requires access to the top-level configuration tree. I can get the configuration tree for the individual components, but I cannot see how to get the top-level tree. Is there such a thing? Is it available in any useful way? Any suggestions would be welcome. John Collins University of Minnesota
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
