Re: [Avalon4:PROPOSAL] Context Consensus (version 2)
Stephen McConnell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.apps.devel,gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Leo Sutic wrote: > >>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>> In regards to future canonical key names, it is the intent >>> that the values placed in the context are runtime values that >>> can only be provided by the container. The Context should >>> not be used to retrieve configuration values or services >>> that can be provided by peer components. >>> >>> >>I recognize your concern, but I think it is problamatic. >> >>I have cases where I'm constructing components that end up in >>context. Its does not happen very often >> > >That was my intent with the new text - basically saying that >"this is what we recommend in general, but as always >there are times when you have to do something else." > Problem is that it is statating that there is a notion of container-provided versus peer-provide - and that something I disagree with. There has been a lot of disucussion about this and the notion of "not" declaring where something comes from. A component should not care how context entries are resolved - and this text is implying that there are restrictions related to the sort of information your going to get from context in terms of where it comes from - and I think thats a bad thing. > >Can you think of a better way of saying it, if you agree >with the sentence above? > Given that meta-info and standard attribute names can be shifted to a subsequent step, the issues your addessing here are: (a) convenstions concerning entry key naming (b) conventions concerning context usage On the subject of (a) I think comes down to being explicit about recommending the use of RFC 2141and specifically declaraing the "avalon" NID. On the subject of (b), I don't think there is anything that should be said. So, if I were to propose something it would look like the following: Entry key names should conform to URN naming conventions specificed under RFC 2141 where the format of a URN is "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>. NID is Namespace IDentifier, and NSS is Namspace Specific String. The NID "avalon" is reserved for standard Avalon context key entries. Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[email protected] http://www.osm.net