You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by vinay nair <vi...@yahoo.com> on 2002/01/26 22:17:11 UTC
Some silly Clarifications
Hi,
While reading the "implementing the dream" chapter ,
(page 37 of the pdf version)
i found a code snippet adding ComponentHandler
instance with the DefaultComponentManager .
Of what i have seen so far in the code ,
ComponentHandler is not Component.
am I overlooking something in arriving at this
conclusion?
If i am not ,
would the recommended way to register a component
within a ContainerComponent be by using the
ComponentManager.addComponent(role,class,configuration)
call on the ComponentManager received by the
COntainerComponent during its composition.
With Loggable interface deprecated would be it be
advisable to make the excalibur.component.*
classes also extend AbstractLogEnabled instead
of AbstractLoggable. ?
Maybe here too i am missing something all-together .
regards,
V i n a y.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Some silly Clarifications
Posted by vinay nair <vi...@yahoo.com>.
Hi berin,
Thanks a lot.
Missed the system/* package under
excalibur-scratchpad.
But the reason i wrote the mail was to clarify the
a code snippet the shows a ComponentHandler
being added to the ComponentManager with the
addComponent(..) call.
(pg 37 of pdf or
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/developing/implementing.html)
.
That should be typo if i am not wrong .
am I ?
V i n a y.
--- Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org> wrote:
> vinay nair wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > While reading the "implementing the dream" chapter
> ,
> > (page 37 of the pdf version)
> > i found a code snippet adding ComponentHandler
> > instance with the DefaultComponentManager .
> > Of what i have seen so far in the code ,
> > ComponentHandler is not Component.
> > am I overlooking something in arriving at this
> > conclusion?
>
>
> ComponentHandler is a wrapper to handle the logic of
> whether
> the Component should be accessed via Factory method,
> Pooled
> Component, or singleton (ThreadSafe).
>
> So you are right. ComponentHandler is not a
> Component.
> You use it to get your hands on one--without
> worrying about
> the details of how the Component should be managed.
>
>
>
> > With Loggable interface deprecated would be it be
> > advisable to make the excalibur.component.*
> > classes also extend AbstractLogEnabled instead
> > of AbstractLoggable. ?
> >
> > Maybe here too i am missing something all-together
> .
>
>
> Unfortunately, we do have to maintain backwards
> compatibility.
>
> There is a new package in scratchpad which will
> properly separate
> the ComponentManager interface from the Container
> (unlike the
> ExcaliburComponentManager which acts as both).
>
> That will be LogEnabled clean, and will not support
> Loggable
> components.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Some silly Clarifications
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
vinay nair wrote:
> Hi,
> While reading the "implementing the dream" chapter ,
> (page 37 of the pdf version)
> i found a code snippet adding ComponentHandler
> instance with the DefaultComponentManager .
> Of what i have seen so far in the code ,
> ComponentHandler is not Component.
> am I overlooking something in arriving at this
> conclusion?
ComponentHandler is a wrapper to handle the logic of whether
the Component should be accessed via Factory method, Pooled
Component, or singleton (ThreadSafe).
So you are right. ComponentHandler is not a Component.
You use it to get your hands on one--without worrying about
the details of how the Component should be managed.
> With Loggable interface deprecated would be it be
> advisable to make the excalibur.component.*
> classes also extend AbstractLogEnabled instead
> of AbstractLoggable. ?
>
> Maybe here too i am missing something all-together .
Unfortunately, we do have to maintain backwards compatibility.
There is a new package in scratchpad which will properly separate
the ComponentManager interface from the Container (unlike the
ExcaliburComponentManager which acts as both).
That will be LogEnabled clean, and will not support Loggable
components.
----------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>