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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.