avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen McConnell" <mcconn...@osm.net>
Subject Would the real component package please stand up!
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:51:17 GMT

Paul:

You said the following which go me thinking:

> > I'm not so sure.  We're trying to sell Component 
> > assembly, component orientated programming. With the 
> > proposal with Service as the replacement word, we've 
> > duplicated an entire package. 

For me the "real" debate should be about the content of 
the framework/component package.  I believe that the current 
content (ComponentManger etc.) should be depreciated based on 
the proposal for framework/service and that the "component" 
package should contain the set of "real" component utilities - 
utilities that really help with the aggregation of component 
management aspects.  Note that I'm using the term "aspect" to 
focus on a particular behavioural element of a component (e.g. 
Contextualization/Parameterization is one aspect, Logging is a
nother aspect, service provisioning and decommissioning is a 
third aspect, etc.).  For example - a valid "component" package 
class would be a real component manager - i.e. something that 
provides the bootstrap logging establishment, provides support 
for pipelining of components, through respective aspects. I'm 
thinking about something totally based on framework interfaces 
and default implementations (i.e. independent of Excalibur and 
Phoenix). Imagine the sales potential when you are backed by a 
tool-set that really adds component integrity to the framework.

Cheers, Steve.

Stephen J. McConnell, OSM sarl
digital products for a global economy
http://www.osm.net
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net 

--
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