Re: [Avalon4:PROPOSAL] Context Consensus (version 5)
Leo Sutic <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.apps.devel,gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Peter Donald wrote: > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:06, Leo Sutic wrote: > > It doesn't matter for the proposal, but the idea is that since avalon:work > > is global, it made more sense to specify that as a key, and then map it > > into the component's namespace via an alias="" parameter. > > I thought we decided that key is the term we use to lookup things with. At > least thats what was decided wrt to service resolution. So you should only > need to specify the key if it differs from the intent. That's true. The reasoning behind the sample XML in the proposal was that instead of: intent: avalon:work key: (defaults to intent) type: java.io.File we'd have: globally unique key (giving intent): avalon:work component-local key (alias): (defaults to globally unique key) type: java.io.File Which appeared easier to understand. The two methods specify exactly the same data (except the names are a bit different): Some kind of intent (avalon:work), optionally a name that will be used in get(), and a return type. The proposal says nothing about *how* these things are to be specified, so this particular issue is out-of-scope for the proposal. As soon as we get a proper DTD, the examples will be updated. What exists there right now is just an illustration of the concepts of global keys (intent), and a way of renaming them (alias, key). /LS