avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MutableConfiguration
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:17:07 GMT
Leo Sutic wrote:

> WHY PUT IT IN FRAMEWORK?
> ------------------------
> Because DefaultConfiguration, which is the (I believe) by far most
> commonly used example of a mutable configuration object, is in
> framework. Putting the interface in Excalibur would mean that the 
> class that is the prime example of an implementation of it would 
> not implement the interface. This makes no sense.

Good point.

> I have no problem putting it in avalon-framework-impl instead of -api, 
> though.

But I'm not OK with this. Mixing together an interface and the 
implementation means that any implementation of that interface would 
need to drag in all of those XML dependencies implied by the implementation.

However, putting this into something like avalon-framework-spi would 
seem to me to make a lot more sense.  What would make this a slam dunk 
question for me would be an alternative implementation that used the 
interface (Alex - any thoughts on the viability of backing this 
interface with Eve?).

Stephen.

-- 

|------------------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin                                |
| Production by Avalon                           |
|                                                |
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin                |
| http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest    |
|------------------------------------------------|

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


Mime
View raw message