avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Re: [proposal] say no to ROLE (was Re: Re: Roles and Components in Merlin...)
Date Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:56:16 GMT
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 16:41, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>  
> > 
> > But its not necessarily the same.  I remember a long time ago raising 
> > the same subject and it was explained to me that the string returned by 
> > ROLE need not be the same as the interface classname. Anyway, I've never 
> > managed to get a clean computationally answer on the ROLE question.
> 
> Ok so then Aaron you were referring to how a container developer interprets
> or uses the ROLE pattern?  In that case we just need not use it or 
> referrence it ever again leaving existing excalibur components as they stand.
> All future developer need not ever use the ROLE thingy again and our
> users (component developers) need not worry about defining ROLE.

Right.

For legacy sake, Fortress documentation needs to explain what a role
file is and how to do RoleManager configuration, but point out that the
future is meta-data.  Excalibur documentation should point out that the
ROLE variable is just for convenience and not any sort of standard.  New
user documentation and tutorials should avoid the usage since it can
cause confusion.

I think we're on the same page here.  I just wanted to be sure.

-- 
 jaaron  <http://jadetower.org>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message