Re: [picocontainer-dev] [Paul?] DPC.initForConfig()

Is not the fake component stuff in DPC now? It was moved out of APC?

It only happens when someone uses addConfig(...), and not when some  
uses addComponent(...) exclusively.

Alternatively we could have a method on DPC, like lockToNames(true)  
or similar.

What is the testcase that is failing for you dude ?

- Paul

On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Konstantin Priblouda wrote:

>
> --- Paul Hammant <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Config items are new for Pico2.  They are always
>> named as opposed to
>> typed, and there is a high likelihood that they'd be
>> associated with
>> parameter names (refer
>> http://paranamer.codehaus.org).
>>
>> The dummy entries are to artificially ensure that no
>> lookup by type
>> will get back a config item unless it has the right
>> parameter name.
>
> well, I think  in this case it shall be limited to
> APC.
> I'm kind of unhappy with the idea of stray components
> appearing out of nowhere.
>
> To avoid resoluition by type APC could simply refuse
> to do it instead providing fake components.
> WDYT?
>
> regards,
>
> ----[ Konstantin Pribluda http://www.pribluda.de ]----------------
> JTec quality components: http://www.pribluda.de/projects/
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email