Re: [picocontainer-dev] Nano2 (baby steps - work in progress) 'config' based entries in component tree.
Jörg Schaible <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.picocontainer.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Paul Hammant wrote:
> I agree that it could be subject to taste.
>
> It is just as viable for a composition script to pull config vars from:
>
> * xml
> * a properties file
> * an #include concept for Groovy/JRuby
>
> - Paul
This property/component problem also always itched me. DI cannot really
distinguish between those two. Maybe we should introduce a concept for the
dependency resolution, which types should be handled as (named) parameter
and which as component.
Classic parmeter types are primitives and the ones of java.lang, but you may
also add types like URL, URI, UUID, ...
Currently those two are encapsulated by ConstantParameter and
ComponentParameter, but maybe we should treat them more different. Some
kind of individual configuration for the components.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email