avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release
Date Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:35:23 GMT
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:44, Leo Simons wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:49, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >>  * that the package be migrated from the avalon-sandbox
> >>    CVS to the avalon CVS as a separate project along-side
> >>    the avalon framework
> >
> > -1 as it does not belong at same level as framework.
>
> we have discussed moving materials which do not belong at the same level
> as avalon-framework into the avalon CVS module before.

And yet it hasn't happened.

> Can you motivate
> why you think that is not a good idea?

Because it is not common to all containers or development strategies. Look at 
all the other stuff that has a similar story. 

The Marker interfaces will probably be deprecated post fortress release.
The *Selector interfaces can also be considered for deprecation.
In the future I can see the release() methods also being deprecated.

>
> >>  * the release of the avalon-lifecycle package shall be
> >>    considered as an "optional" extension to the framework
> >>    contracts
> >
> > -1
> >
> > It is the same approach that has been done before and failed and can't
> > cleanly produce some aspects like delayed activation, passivation,
> > persistence, transaction demarcation, bifuricating interception etc.
>
> Taking your -1 as a veto rather than an opinion, you should provide a
> viable alternative for it to be valid, which AFAIK you haven't done.

Several times before - you even committed one of my emails to CVS. 

Interceptors will solve all these problems (and many more besides). Go to 
Rickard Öbergs blog for a good description. Alternatively go through the 
links I have provided in the past. Several good articles are available in 
msdn these days aswell. 

> Also, could you please provide more specific information about why the
> approach in the lifecycle package fails, perhaps with a code example?

Perhaps you could show me how it succeeds. We have tried it in the past and it 
led to spagetti code. Not to mention that pretty much all the major players 
in industry moving away from that model to interception based models 
(servlets, ejbs, jmx, etc).

> I would also like to point out that IMHO you're "throwing a veto" rather
> lightly. I think it makes the discussion more productive if you take
> some more effort to back a -1 before issueing it. 

Get over. I have spent hours upon hours explaining this and wrote up several 
long emails and documents explaining this in the past. I have given oodles 
and oodles of links to both java and dot.net based approaches. What is it you 
find lacking in my previous explanations?

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
*----------------------------------------------------------*
The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person 
has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick 
enough so he no longer feels the pain. 
   -- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum 
*----------------------------------------------------------*


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


Mime
View raw message