avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "hammett" <hamm...@uol.com.br>
Subject Avalon Spec [Was: A Foolish Consistency]
Date Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:27:16 GMT
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Niclas Hedhman" <niclas@hedhman.org>

> Everyone in the 'lightweight camp' seems to make a

I strongly suggest you to stop using these kind of terms.

>     "Strict Contract" == "Huge Contract"
> And I think that is where the main mindset block is sitting.

I would never had other opinion. Quoting you "It is all about Component
Interoperability, at container-level, at IDE level, at search tools level,
and every other conceivable application that may be  interested in looking
at the component."

Did you miss the kitchen sink?

My opinion: small steps.

> So we have a 'conflict'. If we do (7), then it is a Avalon Framework

We are under Avalon. I don't see any problem in obligate to use interfaces
to express requirements. OTOH I think we should evolve to support
constructor injection and setter injection, but thats another discussion.

> Then declare your typical AF4 component
>     MyComponent requires GenericStartableSpecification
>     MyComponent compliesWith AvalonStartableSpecification

I'm not sure about your suggestion. I - personally - don't like to relies on
developers to do the right thing. We can find out what a component expects
by inspecting it (search for metadata, interfaces implements, constructors
declared and so on)

> 1. Specifications should be small.


> 3. That Avalon today already contain a lot of these specs, but lumped
> under the AF4 umbrella, making it an 'all-or-nothing' (just like EJB)

Why all or nothing?

> What do you ALL think?

I think you're in the right path. But I'd like to see everyone's opinions
about it.


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

View raw message