Ah, discussions which do not define terms are subject to endless round and rounds.
I see several characteristics of a component. The first is that there is a lifecycle. A component may need to be opened and closed. The second is that components are not singletons. So you can have multiple instances of a component that can be configured differently. Third, a component implements protocols/interfaces and access other components via their protocols/interfaces. And most important, the other components that a component depends on are configurable. In java, it would mean injecting one or more component factories into a component. Given this, any automation of the initialization process will have limited use. This is why I believe in ultra-light components, where the component close frees up the links between a component and the component it depends on. Now you can have variants where some types of components can only be used/owned by one other component and other types of components need to maintain a reference count to control when they automatically close. But the second case is something I have never needed and is usually handled by separating ordinary components from framework components. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
