avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:49:50 GMT
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:49, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>  * 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.

These are aspects that are best taken care of using your interceptor
approach.  However for simpler problems like EventBusEnabled (allowing
the container to set the EventBus for each component that needs it)
it is just the ticket.

Furthermore, the lifecycle package addresses a common need in both
Fortress and Merlin--alowing for a smooth migration path for users
as they upgrade their containers.

The important thing is for the near to mid term it is a solution
that works immediately (the simplist approach), and for the long
term can still easily be supported with the interceptor approach.

We aren't trying to produce the aspects you listed above.  Those
can be done in Phoenix with the more elegant solution you have.

As we look into the "super container" architecture I want to seriously
persue the interceptors.  However the lifecycle extensions architecture
does solve a present need.

It is *optional* as in not all containers are required to support it.
ECM will never support it--for that they will need Fortress at a
minimum.  Merlin will support it.  Phoenix won't--it has a better
mechanism.  Third party containers that want to solve a simple extension
problem will use it.

The question is where does it belong.

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

View raw message