Aslak Hellesoy wrote:
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
> 
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> just a heads-up, since my commit did not show up at the scm list. I've 
>> merged again HEAD into MX_PROPOSAL to get the latest stuff from Aslak 
>> (LC & Visitors). I also fixed any problem within PicoContainer so that 
>> the PicoTests all pass now. I will continue soon to look at all other 
>> modules.
>>

Hey Jörg,

just a quick warning. I wasn't able to keep up with the latest 
development of pico 1.1 so there might be some things in MX_PROPOSAL 
that aren't ideal for 1.1. But if the tests pass it should work.

> Good stuff Jorg. I had a look a week ago, and it all looks good. -Except 
> that some tests seemed to be commented out. (Don't remember exactly 
> where). These must be commented out before we merge back to HEAD.

I removed/commented the GenericCollection/Map/List stuff. I later added 
support for arrays but stopped at this point due to some questions. You 
never answered one of them tho:

public class SomethingGreedy {
	public SomethingGreedy(Object[] everything) { ... }
}

This thing will receive _all_ components in the PicoContainer. 
Everything there is in the whole tree. Depending on the Cyclic 
dependency detection strategy used it will either fail (since its tried 
to inject itself too) or pass and have a very packed component. I think 
this is a security issue and we should think about it first.

> How about settling for a merge from MX_PROPOSAL to HEAD about a week 
> from now? That should give most of us sufficient time to discuss any 
> piece of code they don't agree with.

I'll try and take a look what has changed so far. Still very busy. :(

/thomas