avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: DevWAv (was Re: Minimum Set of Tags (Revisited))
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:27:45 GMT
Paul Hammant wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
>>> For me it's all hairsplitting and trying to solve it all in one go. 
>>
>>
> 
> I'm quite happy with Lowest Common Denominator (LCD ?) generally.  The 
> LCD in this case is Avalon-Framework's Java interfaces.
> 
> I am going to suggest that this quest for doclet tags is completely 
> abandoned.

We need a definition if we are going to allow users to not have to
change *several* files in their source code every time they have
to switch containers.

> Containers use XML meta info, that is usually put in the same jar as the 
> class files.

Wrong.  XML is only one representation of info.  It happens to be what
Phoenix/Merlin uses.  XML is not end all and be all, and packaging
is of a secondary issue right now.

>>    Berin's view:
>>
>>        It is the minimum set of tags that are required
>>        to *define* a component and its role interfaces.
>>
>>        The minimal set is not intended to provide any
>>        information that is used for validation purposes.
>>        There is no notion of signaling the container that
>>        they cannot deploy the component.
>>
>> Conclusion - basic objective needs more discussion. If the objective 
>> is to define a set of tags capable of supporting AF4 then this should 
>> be stated.  If the objective is to define a set of tags that are 
>> restricted to the @phoenix @fortress subset then you have add all of 
>> the implicit semantics introduced by Phoenix and Fortress.  Maybe the 
>> objective is just for Berin to figure out the tags structure and 
>> semantics for @fortress - if so, that should be stated.

No. The objective is what I stated.  You are adding more onto what
I am trying to solve.  We can worry about validation later.  Fortress
isn't doing validation, and it would be too much work to fit it in now.
ECM did not do validation.  It wasn't a design requirement at this time.

We need something that will scale up from Fortress to Phoenix.
These tags are used by the packaging tool to generate the meta info
that the respective containers use.

>> 3. Possible Approaches
>> ----------------------
>>
>>  (a) tag based markup
>>  (b) a common meta-info model 
> 
> 
> (c) no meta-model and no standard tag model (yet).
> 
> There is no need for (b). Diversity is a good thing,
> And (a), as I say, implies attribute support in Java.

Paul, I disagree whole-heartedly with you.  We are agreeing on standards
that will be used in the containers we will be using.  To denounce your
claims:

1) "There is no need for (b)"
      It is for precisely this reason that components cannot work within
      all containers.  There are no standards for letting the developer
      declare their meta-information.  Therefore, no container can agree
      on how to represent it.

2) "Diversity is a good thing"
      Only when there are standards so that I do not have to duplicate
      work when migrating from container to container.  Already
      attributes have greatly improved the productivity of the GUIApp
      project, and the ease of deploying several JARs and piecing
      together functionality of an application.  If I don't have to
      alter all the tags every time I want to migrate to another
      container, then it increases my productivity more.  It also
      *encourages* diversity because I am no longer locked into one
      container as is the case now.

3) "(a) implies attribute support in Java"
      We can explore different options in packaging later.  However, it
      is only a minor thing to repackage a JAR.  Rewriting the way we
      represent meta information for each container has a much greater
      impact.




-- 
"You know the world is going crazy when the best
rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy,
The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is
accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want
to go to war. And the 3 most powerful men in America
are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon' (sic)".

-----Chris Rock


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


Mime
View raw message