avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gerhard Froehlich" <g-froehl...@gmx.de>
Subject RE: cvs commit: jakarta-avalon-cornerstone/apps/db/src/java/org/apache/avalon/db/functions Function.java
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:54:25 GMT
Yup your rigth B & J,
that's was really a heedless commit (copy & paste == evil!!)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:44 PM
>To: Avalon Developers List
>Subject: Re: cvs commit:
>ns Function.java
>Berin & Jeremias,
>Yup your right. It's my fault reeally.  Our abstract parent class should 
>extends AbstractLogEnabled and the pure function interface will extend 
>- Paul H
>>> Is it a good idea to extend a work interface from a life cycle 
>>> interface like
>>> LogEnabled? Doesn't this break the idea of "Separation of Concerns" or
>>> something like that? I can't say that I understood everthing about
>>> Avalon, yet. Still learning... But this struck me as odd. Would someone
>>> be so kind as to enlighten me? Thanks a lot.
>> You are correct.  LogEnabled is an implementation detail, and not part 
>> of the
>> Role of the Component.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

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

View raw message