avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Instrument package into Framework namespace
Date Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:15:28 GMT

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>Reading quickly because I've got a Willy Wonka schedule today, but if your
>argument is that things like Instrument are non-core extensions, sort of an
>javax type thing, then I agree.  Scalable extensibility starts at the
>framework level.  There are core interfaces and standard extensions.

Hi Noel:

Yes. These are the parallels I'm referring to.  Something like the 
instrumentation suite is an extension - and to handle that properly we 
need an extension mechanism.  A framework extension mechanism exists in 
the sandbox.  Another alternative is to handle framework extension via 
meta but that would take longer.  At the end of the day the two 
mechanisms (lifecycle extensions and meta info) can coexist.  In terms 
of immediate requirements relating to Fortress and ECM dependencies 
relative to Instrument, I would put the release of the lifecycle; 
extensions ahead of instrument, then update instrument to use the 
lifecycle extensions.  This enables a good separation of framework from 
extension mechanisms and has no negative impact on APIs.

Cheers, Steve.

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


Stephen J. McConnell

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

View raw message