Re: [picocontainer-dev] Bug or feature?

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

> 
> So in my version of the second test case in DPCTC,
> The contentious  
> issue is whether ComponentA's member reference to
> ComponentC should  
> be from the parent container or the chid container.
> 
> It is from the parent container presently.

... it also proved to be non-case. It just looks
slightly weird to me, how containers, adapters and
parameters are

playing together - and I thought that there is a
possibility  to mask component to be resolved in
parent 
by same key in child ( but I was apparently wrong ) 

A lot of complexity arises from fact, that adapter 
itself is not aware of container it resides. If it
were,  it could just resolve against own reference
and there would be no need to walk hierarchy like
DPC.getInstance() or BasicComponentParameter
( and one parameter less in calls ;) 

But I can not imagine possible side effects without
starting yet another refactoring branch ;) 

regards, 



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


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email