avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan Hawkes" <jhaw...@adsnm.com>
Subject Re: [proposal] IoC type 3.14 extension to the Avalon Framework
Date Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:34:45 GMT
And that's one of the advantages to Avalon PI.  An Avalon PI compliant
container would have to be able to furnish a Logger, ServiceManager, etc.
But there is no such component requirement to ask for them.  Conceptually,
an Avalon PI component that did not make use of Avalon Framework specific
interfaces could be dropped into Pico, and a Pico component that followed
the additional restrictions specified by Avalon PI could be dropped into an
Avalon PI container.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Pugh" <epugh@upstate.com>
To: "'Avalon Developers List'" <dev@avalon.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: [proposal] IoC type 3.14 extension to the Avalon Framework


> I gotta says, the requirement to use other people's interfaces is a huge
> roadblock..   I  don't wanna (said like a child :-)) use other peoples
> interfaces, I want to use mine!  Hence the appeal of the constructor
> approach or the very introspection/reflection approaches...
>
> Eric
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:21 PM
> > To: Avalon Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [proposal] IoC type 3.14 extension to the Avalon
> > Framework
> >
> >
> > Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan Hawkes wrote:
> > >
> > >> Did you even read the rest of the message?  I'm not
> > pushing a type 3
> > >> replacement.  You could continue to write components as
> > you wish.  Please
> > >> see the original message and do me the courtesy of reading
> > it.  I'm not
> > >> trying to spark an argument over which way is best.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry to be unclear, I'll try again. I wanted to communicate that I
> > > don't see the need for type 3 and therefore your proposal.
> > This does not
> > > mean that I would -1 it, if I were a committer. It just
> > means that I
> > > don't need it and haven't understood why others do :)
> >
> > Easy:
> >
> > There are developers who simply refuse to use other people's
> > interfaces
> > (shocking but true), and to support folks who suffer from NIH syndrome
> > (Not Invented Here), the constructor mechanism what was come up from.
> >
> > It has everything to do with development style, and what some
> > developers
> > think is easy others think is a pain.
> >
> > That's why I really don't care what method is used to
> > accomplish IoC as
> > long as it is supported.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > "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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
>
>


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


Mime
View raw message