avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@osm.net>
Subject Re: [A5] Current State of affairs
Date Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:25:37 GMT


Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the main thing missing in the above is the work on getting a 
>> formal meta model in place as part of the framework.  This can be 
>> viewed as an A4 activitiy because there are not obsticles and no 
>> changes needed to put it in place.
>>
>> One final note - given the above - I'm really questioning the 
>> necessity for an A5 any time soon (blame that on Pete Royal for 
>> putting the thought into my head, and yourself for presenting the 
>> above summary which seems to negate a requirement for package name 
>> changes). If instead if I look at the hot topics - Avalon 4.2
>>
>>  - doc updates
>>  - putting a locator in the framework.service package
>>  - update the ComponentException/ServiceException to hold a role 
>> reference
>>  - focused activities on framework metadata
>>  - focussed activites on common logging and how that relates to logkit
>>  - focussed activites on common container services (assembly, 
>> security policy, etc.)
>>  - other commons related stuff to ensure communication of framework 
>> resources
>>    such as configuration
>>  - component demos
>>  - more demo
>>
>> Then I get everything I wanted from 5.0. 
>
>
> So it's Avalon 5, right? ;-) 


Almost. Some disavantages:

1. ComponentManager and Component stay as per current defintion
   in framework.component but depricated in favour of
   ServiceManager/Serviceable.
2. No seperation of interfaces and implementation at the packaging
   level (A5 proposal is doing this) - however, this is achievable
   but its more complicated to seperate when generating jars (but
   still possible).
3. Depricated methods stay depricated.

That's all I can think of.
Can anyone else come up with any other disavantages?

>
>
> >  ECM has a migration path via
>
>> the service package.  Nothing breaks. 
>
>
> I like this.
> In fact it was the base of my stupidly proposed proposal-rant.
>
> Call it 4.5, call it 5, this is what we want: 4 cleaned and on steriods.
>
> Shall we call it 5 anyway?
>
> Whacky proposal: call it 4.5 or 5.4, to enphasize the fact that it's 
> compatible with 4.
>
:-)
4.X
Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.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