avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: Future Direction for Avalon
Date Tue, 06 May 2003 01:09:12 GMT
> > Today Excalibur is largely utilities. Cornerstone is exclusively
> > components.

> And that needs to change.  Right now we have two repositories for
> roughly the same thing.  I prefer not having nine different
> repositories.

Why do you believe that utility classes and components exposing container
lifecycle methods are the same thing?  I am not being argumentative, but I
would view those as different.  As Stephen says, "I would argue that
excalibur and cornerstone represent different abstractions."

Classes are classes, but for one thing, the former are of the nature of
normal Java classes that I might expect to find in Jakarta Commons, or any
normal Java package.  Components expose Avalon Lifecyle methods, and
participate in containment; that seems different to me.  I would expect a
good percentage of them to delegate the implementation of their domain
behavior to some other package, while providing the Avalon component
behavior necessary to interact with the container and other components.

Perhaps we're talking different things?

	--- Noel


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


Mime
View raw message