avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Recapping Discussion on Component Accessing
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:52:05 GMT
Peter Donald wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:37, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>>Perhaps the heirarchy I outlined is too domain specific.  I would like your
>>comments on it, as it does have some merits and some drawbacks.
>>
> 
> I would classify it as so ;)


Between your's and Leo's comments, I believe we came full circle and established
that the contracts we have now are adequate.  We have not resolved whether the
Component interface can be gotten rid of, and for the reasons of the confusion
of what a Component is, I think it would be detrimental to remove it.

It is trivial to wrap a third party "component" with an Avalon Component, as
demonstrated quite amply by Cocoon.  Furthermore, if you need to use a third
party "component" in your existing framework, sometimes you need to make it
work with the interfaces you already have defined (i.e. am I always going to
use it as a Generator?).

The only grievance I have is that Recyclable is in a different package than
ThreadSafe and SingleThreaded.

They are useful marker interfaces for systems that take advantage of that
information.  I say they need to stay, are part of the Framework, because
the LifeStyle is just as important as the LifeCycle.  For 99.9% of all
situations, a Component should be either pooled or shared.


-- 

"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