avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [desperate plea] RE: The need for 'hints'
Date Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:01:45 GMT
At 01:40 AM 6/21/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Yep, Avalon composed Blocks. Blocks were the software equivalent of lego
>bricks. Where polymorphic objects.
>Blocks had version, metadata dependencies, they were thread-safe, they
>were big.
>I remember a pretty heated discussion with Peter about the size of
>blocks. That time I even managed to change his mind ;-)

And the real-world changed it back. A Block is just a component with 
metainfo associated with it - much like cocoons components.

Gosh, things would be easier if you didn't deprecate the concept of
>'block' and wanted to use the same name for two different things.

According to your own analysis there is no distinction except for metadata.

>  block -> an avalon-lifecycle-aware polymorphic object, versionned,
>fully reentrant, sharable, not directly referentiable

Thats not entirely accurate. There is no constraint that a block be 
reentrant or sharable nor has there ever been. It is left up to developer 
and assembler to decide these things.

 > component -> an avalon-lifecycle-aware polymorphic object, directly

Leo (A Cocoon developer) saids a killer feature would be to change cocoon 
to not be directly referentiable.

Given the above points do you still think there is a non-academic 
distinction between Components and Blocks?


Peter Donald
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind,
and proving that there is no need to do so - almost
everyone gets busy on the proof."
              - John Kenneth Galbraith

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message