"B" is acquirable by "C" and "D", because it is within the context of a common container, "A". However, some other object, "E" that is acquired from higher up the containment chain may be affected by the nature of the "B" that is available to "D". Because of that, the "E" may appear differently than it would if presented as a component from some other containment chain. An easy example to grasp is to think of "B" as defining the background color of a page. If "E" is the master page template, other "B" objects in other chains could define the color scheme for the all the objects ("pages") in the parent folder. That's context. -----Original Message----- From: Luciano Ramalho [mailto:luciano@hiper.com.br] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 1:23 PM To: Spicklemire, Jerry Subject: Re: Reversing acquisition? Great ASCII illustration! I see what you mean. But I still donŽt see the difference between "containment" and "context" as defined in the AquisitionUsage Wiki (quoted below). []s Luciano "Spicklemire, Jerry" wrote:
Ramalho wrote:
""" - Containment: Search the object, then its container, then the container's container, and so on. Ignore objects not in this chain.
- Context: Search the objects in precisely the reverse of the order in which they were mentioned, so "A.B.C.D" is always searched in the order "D", "C", "B", "A".
"""
But for me, A.B.C.D means that A contains B; B contains C; and C contains D, so I donŽt see the difference from the first definition.
There's a good slide in Michel's presentation at the open source
conference.
Imagine:
-------------------- | ----- --------- | | | B | | C | | | ----- | ----- | | | | | D | | | | A | ----- | | | | | | | --------- | --------------------
So that "A" is a folder, "B" is an object in "A", "C" is a subfolder in "A", and "D" is an object in "C".
Then "B" is acquirable by "D", or any object in "C", but "B" is not contained in either "C" or "D".
Later, Jerry S.