avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Oficial Policy For Component Interfaces
Date Fri, 28 Dec 2001 20:50:26 GMT
Paul Hammant wrote:

> Berin,
> 
>>
>> Either way the effect is the same.
>>
>> Should I have the ability to change a lifecycle interface without it 
>> being
>> concidered backwards incompatible.
> 
> 
> Sorry dude, I'm still not quite there.  It is not so much of a 
> declaration as an ambiguity.  This from me being the worst master of the 
> English language in this mail list.
> 
> Is the declaration? : We will try not change any of the lifecycle 
> methods from now on for Components.  If we do, we *will* maintain 
> backwards compatibility.



I am saying that *strict* backwards compatibility would not allow me to
change the implementation of a Component from Loggable to LogEnabled.
If we _relax_ that requirement so that only the role interface and
contracts surrounding it must remain backwards compatible, then I could
change Loggable to LogEnabled.  I would also be able to later add
Initializable, or remove Contextualizable.

For Components, the lifecycle interfaces are supposed to be different
concerns.

so the vote is: Do we enforce *strict* backwards compatibility or *relaxed*
backwards compatibility?

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


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


Mime
View raw message