Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 83120 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2001 19:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Dec 2001 19:41:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 28455 invoked by uid 97); 28 Dec 2001 19:41:36 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28428 invoked by uid 97); 28 Dec 2001 19:41:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28415 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2001 19:41:34 -0000 Message-ID: <3C2CCB6B.3050808@apache.org> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:43:39 -0500 From: Berin Loritsch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Oficial Policy For Component Interfaces References: <3C2CC51F.9080506@apache.org> <3C2CC842.8060005@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Paul Hammant wrote: > Berin, > >> 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? > > > Err sorry to be pedandtic, but do you mean ... > > Should it be a goal for Components to maintain backwards > compatibility of their lifecycle interfaces? > > OR > > Is the changing of lifecycle interfaces considered to be backwards > compatible? Either way the effect is the same. Should I have the ability to change a lifecycle interface without it being concidered backwards incompatible. > >> This does not apply to regular classes and containers. This is only >> for Components, > > > And only, mostly to Excalibur I guess. > > Regards, > > - Paul H > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > . > -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: