avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Farr, Aaron" <Aaron.F...@am.sony.com>
Subject RE: [RT] defining compatibility
Date Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:46:22 GMT
Yet another good RT, Leo.  I'm going to go home and let this one sink in.  A
couple of initial comments:

- A TCK or similar formal spec would be helpful for just getting our own
containers/components working together.

- /LS has a good point about hitting a moving target.  There are a couple of
ways of handling that
  * A TCK which focuses on established contracts 
    (ie- merlin/fortress would already pass)
  * A TCK which focuses on where we want to be 
    (ie- merlin/fortress wouldn't yet pass, but we want them to soon)

- I'm not sure a single spec would be appropriate.  That is, as you
mentioned, there are container<->component contracts as well as
user<->container contracts.  Also, one person might be interested in saying
her component is Avalon compliant (can run in an Avalon container) while
other is interested in saying his container is Avalon compliant (can run
Avalon components).  These are two related but perhaps separate issues.

- We shouldn't ignore the wider community.  This include both our users
(including Cocoon and Turbine) as well as the larger IoC community.  For
specs or extensions which aren't necessarily tied to Avalon we should look
at more community cooperation where possible.  We can't please everyone, but
we shouldn't ignore everyone either.  Additionally, there are JSR's which
may be relevant to our efforts.

- For now, I recommend you continue just working on it.  We could debate
this forever.  In fact another solution would be a small group works on the
TCK amongst themselve and then presents various milestones to the group at
large instead of voting and debating on each issue.

J. Aaron Farr
  (724) 696-7653

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

View raw message