avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Component Metadata and Metainfo model
Date Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:17:48 GMT
At 10:27 AM 7/5/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 09:29, Peter Donald wrote:
> > At 09:17 AM 7/5/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> > > > Never going to use an interface again for this. If you remember 
> back about
> > > > 1 1/2 years ago we separated out interface and implementations for the
> > > meta
> > > > classes. It sucked hugely.
> > >
> > >Can't say that I do...could you provide a keyword or archive link?
> >
> > Nope. Have a look through phoenixs CVS history it should be there.
> > Previously I tried to write a generic container infrastructure but failed
> > miserably due to overspecification of everything. The results of this are
> > scattered through history of jakarta-avalon and
> > jakarta-avalon-excalibur/all CVSes under the "container" package.
>
>rings a bell. What was it again, camelot 'n friends?


camelot and atlantis were later evolutions of it.

>At that point, I think we removed it because the only 'real' container
>we had was phoenix (ECM wasn't really viewed as such) so it made no
>sense to separate any of it out.

I removed it because it sucked ;) It was too over specified and required 
too much architectural investment to be useful outside of a very small 
range of situations.

>Now, we have quite a few containers (and everyone now has an idea of
>what it is and does) and some more experience. I'd say the situation
>thus has improved to a point where more people get what we're doing, and
>on the other hand we're off worse because there is no portability.
>
>Hence trying once again, no?

Well I only started containerkit so I can share stuff between Cocoon and 
myrmidon. Interoperability between those two (and Phoenix if possible) is 
still main objective for me.

> > Your definitions differ from mine then. Metainfo is meta information about
> > type. (MOF Level 0 MetaData). It has 0 information about profile prototype
> > or anything similar.
>
>MOF?


Meta-Object framework maybe ?? One of OMGs numerous specifications.


> > MetaData is the component profile.
> >
> > Entry is the runtime information about component. ie Actual Logger,
> > Context, instance (or pool), dependency instance references etc.
> >
> > My model does not say anything about component profile prototype. I was 
> not
> > going to address it as I wanted to see the outcome of work that Peter is
> > doing on phoenix and Stephen is doing on Merlin.
> >
> > The model also does not offer a COnfiguration or Parameters Schema yet
> > (again I am waiting to see experimentation on Phoenix).
>
>ah. These definitions aren't very clear from looking at the current
>containerkit :/
>
>I take it I should look at kernel.ComponentEntry....that's pretty devoid
>of any explanation or contract atm...I take it the idea is to expand on
>it once we know a bit more?

No - it will be deleted once the rest of containerkit is validated. I am 
just using it as testing framework to see what works and what doesn't. It 
may grow into something else but not its main objective.

Cheers,

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>


Mime
View raw message