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

From: "peter royal" <[email protected]>
> 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..

+1