You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Dmitri Plotnikov <dm...@apache.org> on 2002/10/26 23:54:45 UTC
Re: [clazz] Doclet for metadata? (was: Type-based or instance-based
metadata?)
I appreciate the power of attributes and I think we should consider
supporting them very seriously. But before we do that, we need to figure
out the hourse-cart relationship between [clazz] and doclet-based metadata.
Will doclets be *the* design for [clazz] or *a* pluggable implementation?
If we choose to commit [clazz] to the doclet approach,
1. We have to have source code processing as a mandated part of the build
process.
2. We cannot add or modify metadata for pre-existing or code-generated
classes.
3. We still haven't answered the requirements for DynaBeans, Maps where
there is no source code to augment with doclets.
IMO, we should allow a doclet-based plug-in, but it should be a
specialization of a more generic mechanism.
- Dmitri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
> Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > Berin,
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> >>
> >>>Another dilemma we'll have to resolve is whether metadata will be
> >>>type-based, instance-based or both.
> >>>
>
> <skip/>
>
> >>Most meta info that is useful is type based, not instance based.
> >
> > I guess my examples are not very convincing. What I am trying to say is
> > that type-based metadata is only as detailed as the type. For example,
if
> > you declare a property as "int" you have said quite a bit about the
> > property, however if you declare it as "Object" you have said almost
> > nothing. Better yet, all DynaBeans are of the same type - DynaBean.
> > Looking at the type says nothing at all. Same with Map.
> >
> >
> >>What you are looking at is instance based reflection info. Not a more
> >>generic meta info.
> >
> > First, we do want to have more metadata than mere reflection. We would
like
> > to capture information on how to store XML with Betwixt or JAXB, how to
> > access objects with JXPath etc.
> >
> > Second, we are looking to support a wider variety of object models than
can
> > be supported via Java reflection alone (DynaBeans, Maps etc)
>
> Then focus on an "extension" of the Class object (I know it is declared
final,
> so inheritance is out of the question), that has a set of "attributes".
These
> attributes mean different things to different people/contexts. Also,
don't think
> of attributes as a simple name=value pair. C# attributes have the concept
of
> parameters as well as the attribute itself. For example:
>
> /**
> * @avalon:component
> * @avalon:role=org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent
> * @avalon:creation-policy=singleton
> * @test:multi-value=value1,value2,value3
> */
>
> This would declare a class to have the "avalon:component" attribute, the
> "avalon:role" attribute with the value set to
"org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent",
> etc.
>
> These attributes can be read from the IClass (BTW, I hate prefixed
interfaces/etc.--
> interfaces should be your primary type, so if we have any idioms put it on
the
> implementing class). Attributes that are method specific would be put in
the
> javadoc for your method. In your case you want to know the type info for
a DynaBean
> return value:
>
> /**
> * @dynabean:return=java.util.Date
> */
> Object getDate();
>
> You would want the "dynabean:return" attribute for the "getDate()"
IMethod, or whatever
> you call it.
>
> The Attribute approach is very simple, and is easy to use. Its meaning
only gives
> purpose based on the context. The "test:multi-value" attribute in the
first example
> would be used in a testing framework so that you can apply the same unit
test for a
> suite of methods/classes--and they don't even have to set up the same
interface (the
> Delegate stuff can take care of it). In fact using attributes is a great
way to
> *generate* JUnit tests automagically!
>
>
>
> >>Meta info that is useful to me is things like this:
> >>
> >>* Creation policy (pooled components, thread local components, singleton
> >> components, etc.)
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> >>* Required components (i.e. when one component requires a component of
> >> another type)
> >
> > Could you provide more details on this one?
>
> In Avalon components can require other components to function. An example
> would be the DatabaseReader from Cocoon. It reads information from a
database,
> but uses the org.apache.avalon.excalibur.DataSourceComponent to get the
connection
> from a pool. By declaring this dependency up front, the attributes for
the class
> would enable a container to ensure that an implementation of the required
component
> existed. If it did not, the container can post a failure notice
immediately that
> makes sense.
>
>
> --
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [clazz] Doclet for metadata? (was: Type-based or instance-based metadata?)
Posted by Steve Downey <st...@netfolio.com>.
I suggest that it be one mechanism for creating the meta-data class.
We've got two issues to consider.
1) How to create the meta-data class/classes
2) What the meta-data class looks like
[OK, that looks blindingly obvious to me, now that it's down on pixels]
Doclets are a compile time mechanism. I'd like to see things also be able to
be delayed until deploy or run-time.
I think exploring what meta-data will be exposed might help drive the nature
of the mechanisms for exposing the meta-data.
On Saturday 26 October 2002 05:54 pm, Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> I appreciate the power of attributes and I think we should consider
> supporting them very seriously. But before we do that, we need to figure
> out the hourse-cart relationship between [clazz] and doclet-based metadata.
>
> Will doclets be *the* design for [clazz] or *a* pluggable implementation?
>
> If we choose to commit [clazz] to the doclet approach,
>
> 1. We have to have source code processing as a mandated part of the build
> process.
> 2. We cannot add or modify metadata for pre-existing or code-generated
> classes.
> 3. We still haven't answered the requirements for DynaBeans, Maps where
> there is no source code to augment with doclets.
>
> IMO, we should allow a doclet-based plug-in, but it should be a
> specialization of a more generic mechanism.
>
> - Dmitri
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
>
> > Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > > Berin,
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> > > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:57 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
> > >
> > >>Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > >>>Another dilemma we'll have to resolve is whether metadata will be
> > >>>type-based, instance-based or both.
> >
> > <skip/>
> >
> > >>Most meta info that is useful is type based, not instance based.
> > >
> > > I guess my examples are not very convincing. What I am trying to say
> > > is that type-based metadata is only as detailed as the type. For
> > > example,
>
> if
>
> > > you declare a property as "int" you have said quite a bit about the
> > > property, however if you declare it as "Object" you have said almost
> > > nothing. Better yet, all DynaBeans are of the same type - DynaBean.
> > > Looking at the type says nothing at all. Same with Map.
> > >
> > >>What you are looking at is instance based reflection info. Not a more
> > >>generic meta info.
> > >
> > > First, we do want to have more metadata than mere reflection. We would
>
> like
>
> > > to capture information on how to store XML with Betwixt or JAXB, how to
> > > access objects with JXPath etc.
> > >
> > > Second, we are looking to support a wider variety of object models
> > > than
>
> can
>
> > > be supported via Java reflection alone (DynaBeans, Maps etc)
> >
> > Then focus on an "extension" of the Class object (I know it is declared
>
> final,
>
> > so inheritance is out of the question), that has a set of "attributes".
>
> These
>
> > attributes mean different things to different people/contexts. Also,
>
> don't think
>
> > of attributes as a simple name=value pair. C# attributes have the
> > concept
>
> of
>
> > parameters as well as the attribute itself. For example:
> >
> > /**
> > * @avalon:component
> > * @avalon:role=org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent
> > * @avalon:creation-policy=singleton
> > * @test:multi-value=value1,value2,value3
> > */
> >
> > This would declare a class to have the "avalon:component" attribute, the
> > "avalon:role" attribute with the value set to
>
> "org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent",
>
> > etc.
> >
> > These attributes can be read from the IClass (BTW, I hate prefixed
>
> interfaces/etc.--
>
> > interfaces should be your primary type, so if we have any idioms put it
> > on
>
> the
>
> > implementing class). Attributes that are method specific would be put in
>
> the
>
> > javadoc for your method. In your case you want to know the type info for
>
> a DynaBean
>
> > return value:
> >
> > /**
> > * @dynabean:return=java.util.Date
> > */
> > Object getDate();
> >
> > You would want the "dynabean:return" attribute for the "getDate()"
>
> IMethod, or whatever
>
> > you call it.
> >
> > The Attribute approach is very simple, and is easy to use. Its meaning
>
> only gives
>
> > purpose based on the context. The "test:multi-value" attribute in the
>
> first example
>
> > would be used in a testing framework so that you can apply the same unit
>
> test for a
>
> > suite of methods/classes--and they don't even have to set up the same
>
> interface (the
>
> > Delegate stuff can take care of it). In fact using attributes is a great
>
> way to
>
> > *generate* JUnit tests automagically!
> >
> > >>Meta info that is useful to me is things like this:
> > >>
> > >>* Creation policy (pooled components, thread local components,
> > >> singleton components, etc.)
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > >>* Required components (i.e. when one component requires a component of
> > >> another type)
> > >
> > > Could you provide more details on this one?
> >
> > In Avalon components can require other components to function. An
> > example would be the DatabaseReader from Cocoon. It reads information
> > from a
>
> database,
>
> > but uses the org.apache.avalon.excalibur.DataSourceComponent to get the
>
> connection
>
> > from a pool. By declaring this dependency up front, the attributes for
>
> the class
>
> > would enable a container to ensure that an implementation of the required
>
> component
>
> > existed. If it did not, the container can post a failure notice
>
> immediately that
>
> > makes sense.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > - Benjamin Franklin
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [clazz] Doclet for metadata? (was: Type-based or instance-based metadata?)
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "Dmitri Plotnikov" <dm...@apache.org>
> I appreciate the power of attributes and I think we should consider
> supporting them very seriously. But before we do that, we need to figure
> out the hourse-cart relationship between [clazz] and doclet-based
metadata.
>
> Will doclets be *the* design for [clazz] or *a* pluggable implementation?
One implementation. Sun will add their own at some point from the JSR. We
will have alternative implementations from BeanInfo, xml files, ...
Also, it needs to be possible to add/update the metadata at runtime.
Stephen
> If we choose to commit [clazz] to the doclet approach,
>
> 1. We have to have source code processing as a mandated part of the build
> process.
> 2. We cannot add or modify metadata for pre-existing or code-generated
> classes.
> 3. We still haven't answered the requirements for DynaBeans, Maps where
> there is no source code to augment with doclets.
>
> IMO, we should allow a doclet-based plug-in, but it should be a
> specialization of a more generic mechanism.
>
> - Dmitri
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
>
>
> > Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > > Berin,
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> > > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:57 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Another dilemma we'll have to resolve is whether metadata will be
> > >>>type-based, instance-based or both.
> > >>>
> >
> > <skip/>
> >
> > >>Most meta info that is useful is type based, not instance based.
> > >
> > > I guess my examples are not very convincing. What I am trying to say
is
> > > that type-based metadata is only as detailed as the type. For
example,
> if
> > > you declare a property as "int" you have said quite a bit about the
> > > property, however if you declare it as "Object" you have said almost
> > > nothing. Better yet, all DynaBeans are of the same type - DynaBean.
> > > Looking at the type says nothing at all. Same with Map.
> > >
> > >
> > >>What you are looking at is instance based reflection info. Not a more
> > >>generic meta info.
> > >
> > > First, we do want to have more metadata than mere reflection. We would
> like
> > > to capture information on how to store XML with Betwixt or JAXB, how
to
> > > access objects with JXPath etc.
> > >
> > > Second, we are looking to support a wider variety of object models
than
> can
> > > be supported via Java reflection alone (DynaBeans, Maps etc)
> >
> > Then focus on an "extension" of the Class object (I know it is declared
> final,
> > so inheritance is out of the question), that has a set of "attributes".
> These
> > attributes mean different things to different people/contexts. Also,
> don't think
> > of attributes as a simple name=value pair. C# attributes have the
concept
> of
> > parameters as well as the attribute itself. For example:
> >
> > /**
> > * @avalon:component
> > * @avalon:role=org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent
> > * @avalon:creation-policy=singleton
> > * @test:multi-value=value1,value2,value3
> > */
> >
> > This would declare a class to have the "avalon:component" attribute, the
> > "avalon:role" attribute with the value set to
> "org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent",
> > etc.
> >
> > These attributes can be read from the IClass (BTW, I hate prefixed
> interfaces/etc.--
> > interfaces should be your primary type, so if we have any idioms put it
on
> the
> > implementing class). Attributes that are method specific would be put
in
> the
> > javadoc for your method. In your case you want to know the type info
for
> a DynaBean
> > return value:
> >
> > /**
> > * @dynabean:return=java.util.Date
> > */
> > Object getDate();
> >
> > You would want the "dynabean:return" attribute for the "getDate()"
> IMethod, or whatever
> > you call it.
> >
> > The Attribute approach is very simple, and is easy to use. Its meaning
> only gives
> > purpose based on the context. The "test:multi-value" attribute in the
> first example
> > would be used in a testing framework so that you can apply the same unit
> test for a
> > suite of methods/classes--and they don't even have to set up the same
> interface (the
> > Delegate stuff can take care of it). In fact using attributes is a
great
> way to
> > *generate* JUnit tests automagically!
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Meta info that is useful to me is things like this:
> > >>
> > >>* Creation policy (pooled components, thread local components,
singleton
> > >> components, etc.)
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > >
> > >>* Required components (i.e. when one component requires a component of
> > >> another type)
> > >
> > > Could you provide more details on this one?
> >
> > In Avalon components can require other components to function. An
example
> > would be the DatabaseReader from Cocoon. It reads information from a
> database,
> > but uses the org.apache.avalon.excalibur.DataSourceComponent to get the
> connection
> > from a pool. By declaring this dependency up front, the attributes for
> the class
> > would enable a container to ensure that an implementation of the
required
> component
> > existed. If it did not, the container can post a failure notice
> immediately that
> > makes sense.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > - Benjamin Franklin
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [clazz] Doclet for metadata? (was: Type-based or instance-based
metadata?)
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> I appreciate the power of attributes and I think we should consider
> supporting them very seriously. But before we do that, we need to figure
> out the hourse-cart relationship between [clazz] and doclet-based metadata.
>
> Will doclets be *the* design for [clazz] or *a* pluggable implementation?
Think of the finished product not in "doclet" style implementations, but in
the bytecode/dynamicly generated metainfo that is stored in/with the source
class.
The "doclet" is only one way of generating the attributes. You can also do
so with BCEL. In fact, BCEL would probably be used to generate the new
IClass implementation for the attribute enabled classes.
> If we choose to commit [clazz] to the doclet approach,
>
> 1. We have to have source code processing as a mandated part of the build
> process.
This can be applied in an ANT task.
> 2. We cannot add or modify metadata for pre-existing or code-generated
> classes.
Sure you can. You would create the ClazzGenerator that would generate the
Class implementation that accesses the attributes. The Doclet would use the
ClazzGenerator as one way of generating the attributes. We would probably
have to use BCEL to generate the attribute classes.
> 3. We still haven't answered the requirements for DynaBeans, Maps where
> there is no source code to augment with doclets.
We don't need source code. We should never require the sourcecode to exist
for the system.
>
> IMO, we should allow a doclet-based plug-in, but it should be a
> specialization of a more generic mechanism.
>
It is merely one face or facade that uses the central mechanism.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [clazz] Doclet for metadata? (was: Type-based or instance-based metadata?)
Posted by Adam Murdoch <ad...@apache.org>.
Doclets wouldn't be the implementation per se. Doclets are really just a
convenience for generating whatever needs to end up in the jar (or classpath
or whatever), whether that's a BeanInfo class, or an XML descriptor, or
whatever. That same info could also be added manually to the jar without
needing to use the doclet or having access to the source.
You could have a single implementation, that has a doclet frontend, or
multiple implementations, each with their own doclet frontend. Or no
doclet, or multiple frontends. You get the idea.
Regardless, +1 for pluggable implementations.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitri Plotnikov [mailto:dmitri@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, 27 October 2002 7:55 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [clazz] Doclet for metadata? (was: Type-based or
> instance-based metadata?)
>
>
> I appreciate the power of attributes and I think we should consider
> supporting them very seriously. But before we do that, we need to figure
> out the hourse-cart relationship between [clazz] and doclet-based
> metadata.
>
> Will doclets be *the* design for [clazz] or *a* pluggable implementation?
>
> If we choose to commit [clazz] to the doclet approach,
>
> 1. We have to have source code processing as a mandated part of the build
> process.
> 2. We cannot add or modify metadata for pre-existing or code-generated
> classes.
> 3. We still haven't answered the requirements for DynaBeans, Maps where
> there is no source code to augment with doclets.
>
> IMO, we should allow a doclet-based plug-in, but it should be a
> specialization of a more generic mechanism.
>
> - Dmitri
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
>
>
> > Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > > Berin,
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Berin Loritsch" <bl...@apache.org>
> > > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:57 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [clazz] Type-based or instance-based metadata?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Dmitri Plotnikov wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Another dilemma we'll have to resolve is whether metadata will be
> > >>>type-based, instance-based or both.
> > >>>
> >
> > <skip/>
> >
> > >>Most meta info that is useful is type based, not instance based.
> > >
> > > I guess my examples are not very convincing. What I am
> trying to say is
> > > that type-based metadata is only as detailed as the type.
> For example,
> if
> > > you declare a property as "int" you have said quite a bit about the
> > > property, however if you declare it as "Object" you have said almost
> > > nothing. Better yet, all DynaBeans are of the same type - DynaBean.
> > > Looking at the type says nothing at all. Same with Map.
> > >
> > >
> > >>What you are looking at is instance based reflection info. Not a more
> > >>generic meta info.
> > >
> > > First, we do want to have more metadata than mere reflection. We would
> like
> > > to capture information on how to store XML with Betwixt or
> JAXB, how to
> > > access objects with JXPath etc.
> > >
> > > Second, we are looking to support a wider variety of object
> models than
> can
> > > be supported via Java reflection alone (DynaBeans, Maps etc)
> >
> > Then focus on an "extension" of the Class object (I know it is declared
> final,
> > so inheritance is out of the question), that has a set of "attributes".
> These
> > attributes mean different things to different people/contexts. Also,
> don't think
> > of attributes as a simple name=value pair. C# attributes have
> the concept
> of
> > parameters as well as the attribute itself. For example:
> >
> > /**
> > * @avalon:component
> > * @avalon:role=org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent
> > * @avalon:creation-policy=singleton
> > * @test:multi-value=value1,value2,value3
> > */
> >
> > This would declare a class to have the "avalon:component" attribute, the
> > "avalon:role" attribute with the value set to
> "org.apache.excalibur.DataSourceComponent",
> > etc.
> >
> > These attributes can be read from the IClass (BTW, I hate prefixed
> interfaces/etc.--
> > interfaces should be your primary type, so if we have any
> idioms put it on
> the
> > implementing class). Attributes that are method specific would
> be put in
> the
> > javadoc for your method. In your case you want to know the
> type info for
> a DynaBean
> > return value:
> >
> > /**
> > * @dynabean:return=java.util.Date
> > */
> > Object getDate();
> >
> > You would want the "dynabean:return" attribute for the "getDate()"
> IMethod, or whatever
> > you call it.
> >
> > The Attribute approach is very simple, and is easy to use. Its meaning
> only gives
> > purpose based on the context. The "test:multi-value" attribute in the
> first example
> > would be used in a testing framework so that you can apply the same unit
> test for a
> > suite of methods/classes--and they don't even have to set up the same
> interface (the
> > Delegate stuff can take care of it). In fact using attributes
> is a great
> way to
> > *generate* JUnit tests automagically!
> >
> >
> >
> > >>Meta info that is useful to me is things like this:
> > >>
> > >>* Creation policy (pooled components, thread local
> components, singleton
> > >> components, etc.)
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > >
> > >>* Required components (i.e. when one component requires a component of
> > >> another type)
> > >
> > > Could you provide more details on this one?
> >
> > In Avalon components can require other components to function.
> An example
> > would be the DatabaseReader from Cocoon. It reads information from a
> database,
> > but uses the org.apache.avalon.excalibur.DataSourceComponent to get the
> connection
> > from a pool. By declaring this dependency up front, the attributes for
> the class
> > would enable a container to ensure that an implementation of
> the required
> component
> > existed. If it did not, the container can post a failure notice
> immediately that
> > makes sense.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> > deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > - Benjamin Franklin
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>