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

--- Paul Hammant <[email protected]> wrote:

> You're not convincing me dude :-)
> 
> Can we talk in terms of end-user code?  show me a
> code fragment that  
> does something that you do not like.
> 
> Like this ...
> 
>    public class NeedsString {
>      public NeedsString(String foo) { .. }
>    }
>    dpc.addComponent(NeedsString.class)
>    dpc.addConfig("hello","is it me you're looking
> for?");
>    dpc.getComponent(NeedsString.class)
>    // barfs with ambiguous

I would prefer this as unsatisfied. 

> Whereas ...
> 
>    dpc.addComponent(NeedsString.class)
>    dpc.addComponent(String.class,"is it me you're
> looking for?");
>    dpc.getComponent(NeedsString.class)
>    // works

That's correct. 

> Is that the thing that sits uncomfortably with you ?

Yes. It seems that we introduced 3rd kind artifact 
inside container - config entry ( first two were:
component and instance )  and it is going to stay. 

So we need to formally define that most distonct
property of config entry is:
 - newer match by type, only by name ( hack with
ambiguous results from this requirement ) 

This calls for a new type of component adapter  ;)

regards,


----[ Konstantin Pribluda http://www.pribluda.de ]----------------
JTec quality components: http://www.pribluda.de/projects/


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email