avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Something Missing? (Was: [Avalon.NET] Status)
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:02:07 GMT
Geer, Christopher S wrote:

> hammett wrote:
> 
>>Just to make sure: we have the minimum set of interfaces defined (?)
> 
> Is
> 
>>there something missing or to be defined?
>>
> 
> 
> Well, one of the advantages of being on vacation for a week is you have
> a lot of time on your hands to think, on disadvantage is you have a lot
> of time on your hands to think. Anyway, that was my situation last week
> and this question came up a lot. I'm not sure the framework, in its
> current state, has gone far enough (or maybe it has gone too far but
> still missed the mark it was trying to hit).
> 

Well, let's avoid over-thinking it.

<snip type="other comments"/>


> ---
> 
> If we go down the other path that the framework needs to be scaled back
> then maybe lifecycle and "component" definition shouldn't be included at
> all. Maybe the framework (not a really good name in this scenario but
> bare with it for now) should only contain the nano-kernel that Berin has
> been discussing. This nano-kernel would be just enough code to startup,
> find the available plug-ins and load them up. The plug-ins would then
> take care of things like lifecycle management, security and other
> functions so that they are replaceable over time. The framework would
> just define a base set of extension points for the core plug-ins while
> the plug-ins could then define more. (This idea has really stemmed from
> spending too much time reading up on the inner working of Eclipse if you
> hadn't noticed yet) This approach would really take us away from the
> competing container model because your container would be the collection
> of plug-ins that you need to get the job done. Obviously not every
> plug-in would work with every other one so there would still need to be
> "container projects", but they would be more responsible for having
> collected the plug-ins that they recommend.
> 
> ---
> 
> Anyway, this may be a bit of a radical view (or views really) but this
> might be the right time to start thinking about this since we have a
> testing arena with Avalon.NET. 
> 

Then at this stage I suggest we start with the container code, and start
with the nano-container.  Ignore Framework for now, because without any
kind of foundation to work with it (i.e. container) there is no real use
for it.

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


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


Mime
View raw message