Re: [picocontainer-dev] [6.2/6.0] Re: [picocontainer-dev] Bug or feature?

On Nov 26, 2007, at 7:51 AM, peter royal wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:23 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>
>>> At the moment I see PICO-203, and no reasoning...
>>
>>
>> Well, I try to remember, it was 2 or 3 years agao ...
>
> i'm sure paul remembers :)

It is most likely because we declared that CA's should not hold on to  
a container instance.

However ...

       T getComponentInstance(PicoContainer container) throws  
PicoCompositionException;

.... only requires a container instance to be passed in at  
getComponent time.  Which ref is passed in ?  parent or child ?

It might be nice for the one that the getComponent(..) is being  
invoked on to exclusively be passed around for all resolves - though  
that requires a lot of thought before we change things.


>
>> Additionally it made problems when the CA was saved in a session,  
>> since it triggered always the complete Pico hierarchy.
>
> this seems rational, but are CA's ever independently stored in a  
> session vs an entire child container?

As of Pico2, the Storing/Stored BehaviorFactory/Behavior gets stuff  
put in a session concept (fully serializable w/o a ref to the container)

Regards,

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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email