avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ComponentVerifier exceptions
Date Sat, 08 Jun 2002 09:28:23 GMT
At 10:28 AM 6/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>>So I think if a container wishes for certain things to be warnings then 
>>they should subclass the verifier to perform their container specific 
>>validations.
>
>
>I don't think verification is container specific (at least in general). 
>The sort of things I'm differentiating here are not container related - 
>they are best practice related.


Well of the things you listed, Phoenix *requires* all except 
verifyServiceNotALifecycle (so that could be a warning) but in most of the 
other contains many of points could be warnings. So the only thing that can 
possibly be a warning is verifyServiceNotALifecycle and a generic warning 
vs violation seems overkill for one case. If we put things in like 
component should not extend Component interface that would be a warning but 
I tried to avoid anything like that.

>The big plus is that build time verification can be treated differently to 
>runtime verification.  At build time we may want to spit out messages and 
>complain loudly (e.g. using an verify ant task that is aiming to ensure 
>developer best-practice), but at runtime its a kernel that is verifying 
>that it can load and deploy the component - in which case we will want to 
>be more flexible (because the prime objective is deployment, not 
>best-practice).

There is little best-practice enforced besides making sure the service 
interface does not extend lifecycle interfaces. (And I think that enforcing 
that is a good thing)


--
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