avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Oficial Policy For Component Interfaces
Date Sat, 29 Dec 2001 03:26:02 GMT
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 06:16, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Concidering the fact that most Avalon systems automatically determine the
> lifecycles of the components, I am wondering if we should strive to
> maintain 100% backwards compatibility for lifecycle interfaces.  The issue
> is brought to light due to the LogEnabled interface.
> Should it be concidered backwards compatible for a *Component* to change
> it's lifecycle interfaces?

It would be nice if the contract was at the work interface and lifecycle 
interfaces being completely othogonal to this could easily change etc. If you 
are automagically running the container via ECM, Phoenix or similar then it 
would have a net effect of 0%

However this is not always the case and sometimes you end up hand managing 
components for whatever reason. So it would need to be done on a case by case 
basis. In Phoenix the only way that Blocks talk to each other is via their 
work interface so it would be fine there ... wish ECM did things like this ;)

I don't use any of the clusters like component.* so I don't have an opinion 
whether it is useful to change them. I would prefer that you just added a new 
class ECM2 or maybe something with a better name ;] that implemented all new 
changes and deprecated the old cluster.



 These aren't the droids you're 
 looking for. Move along. 

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