On Friday 13 February 2004 00:41, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > Sorry, but I don't get it. Why is the selector container specific?
The "hint" doesn't have a strong semantic meaning, and it has been up to the container to define how it interprets it. > Yes, Avalon concepts are mostly as abstract as possible and at the end > nobody gets the idea what they could mean :) Yeah, this is probably a problem we are facing. > Ok. So the selection itself is ok, but not the to generic service selector. > but then the statement "the usage service selector might be related to bad > design" is to universal, isn't it? I am not sure. I haven't written too many applications myself, and the one I am slowly progressing on, doesn't need selectors. Somehow, it may be related to that Phoenix and Merlin allows for more elaborate "wiring" than ECM. > I like the idea of getting completely initialized components back without > any care about the lifecycle (like for manager.lookup()), but maybe the > selector is to deep inside the container to expect this here too. In the given example, the author have decided that the selectors <configuration> shall contain component definitions. It beats me why this was chosen, instead of the standard defintion of components declared to implement the Services of interest. The simple sample I gave, does rely on container handling the lifecycle. The rationale behind the given Cocoon example must be forwarded to Vadim or Cocoon community I guess... Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
