Re: [loom] [dna] Properties in component configurations

On Nov 17, 2003, at 5:57 PM, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> Whether I go with the ConfigUtil or a pre-processor, I think we still 
> have an issue with regard to portable components.  If someone writes a 
> block with properties in its configuration using loom and then tries 
> to deploy on a container that does not provide this functionality, 
> they will get a nasty surprise.

portable components != portable component configuration, in my mind :)

ideally, any property expansion in configuration should be done before 
a component gets the Configuration instance, which Jason's code 
handles..
-pete