Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 24408 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2003 13:20:47 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Jan 2003 13:20:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 28707 invoked by uid 97); 7 Jan 2003 13:22:01 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28644 invoked by uid 97); 7 Jan 2003 13:22:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28632 invoked by uid 98); 7 Jan 2003 13:21:59 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3E1AD43F.1070702@apache.org> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:21:03 +0100 From: Stephen McConnell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: Requirements for implementing Cocoon Blocks References: <3E1A3B34.4060504@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ulrich Mayring wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > >> Ulrich Mayring wrote: >> >> Probably. But the idea is to do a proper extraction of that container >> framework and do as much work as possible within the avalon scope. >> Peeps are talking of building "profiles" on top of such a framework >> to handle more specific needs, with easy tweaking of those profiles >> for your application-specific needs. SoC, really. > > > If it's possible I'm all for it. So far Cocoon is a major customer, > maybe there are some others, I don't know. But once you have a number > of major customers like Cocoon my guess is you won't be able to make > all of them happy with a �ber-container. But, as I said, I'd love to > be proven wrong :) OK - I ready to take you up on that :-) 1. i hate �ber-container - its missleading 2. profile based container solution based on a common architecture is a much more useful description 3. we can deliver strong webservice support providing we are ready lift an Avalon lock-in mentality, and instead, embrace the abstract concepts of deployment strategy, assembly, lifecycle, lifestyle, etc. 4. backed by a rock solid implementation of the Avalon component model And none of the above is fantasy - its all based on validated code. Now, if we prove you wrong are you ready to streak across the Cocoon list wearing nothing but a Avalon cap and big grin? :=) > >>> So, to me the interesting question is: what do we give up if we give >>> up on a block-concept and instead rely only on a component concept? >> >> >> are you referring to cocoon or in general? In general application >> decomposition, we often find logical partitions of the application >> into components, and then logical partition of those components into >> subcomponents, up to a level where a subsubsubcomponent becomes to >> small as to warrant the component management overhead. > > > I was talking about application development in general. You don't need give up anyting. See below. > >> arbitrary partitioning is an application-neutral concern. I'm >> guessing a cocoon block model would be application-specific, with a >> large part addressable by application-neutral stuff. We need to >> figure out how avalon can provide the application-neutral stuff, and >> also make it easy for cocoon to put the application-specific stuff on >> top of that. > > > What do you mean by arbitrary partitioning? There already is arbitrary > partitioning by way of Avalon components. How much more arbitrary do > you want to become? For example, do you want to do something like this: > > arbitrary_code --> Java class > Java classes --> component > components --> block > blocks --> application > > Where you have four different ways of partitioning? That would seem > not very arbitrary - the developer has to adhere to four different > contracts and what if he needs a fifth partition? > > Arbitrary partitioning to me would mean something like this: > > arbitrary_code --> component > components --> component > > While this is more elegant, because it has only one contract and the > developer can be real arbitrary, it does not seem very useful to me. How about: manages |--------------| V | arbitrary_code --> component ---> container ^ | |is a | |--------------| Cheers, Steve. > cheers, > > Ulrich -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:mcconnell@apache.org http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: