avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@d-haven.org>
Subject Re: Avalon Versions
Date Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:37:01 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
> I like this post :o)
> It is concrete and to the point.
> 
>> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> That particular point isn't the issue, but how that decision process 
>> was made--without the input of others who depend on framework.  
> 
> 
> Ok. People feel bypassed in a decision process, for an item that the 
> makers felt were marginal.
> 
> 
>> but at the same time we need something that isn't going to change 
>> unpredictably.  
> 
> 
> 4.1 won't change feature-wise.
> You are all free to add bug-fixes to it, and since the codebase between 
> 4.1 and 4.2 hasn't changed either, it is currently a management issue only.
> 
>>> 2. I think (but not sure) that it can't be very hard for a container 
>>> to support it.
>>
>> I dunno.  Are we talking full Pico style constructor injection or more 
>> simple Avalon artifacts in the constructor?  What happens when there 
>> is a no argument constructor AND a constructor that accepts 
>> arguments--and they are both public?
> 
> 
> We are ONLY talking injection of "LifeCycle Artifacts", namely 
> ServiceManager, Context and Configuration, which will maintain 
> compatibility (perhaps not all construed examples from LSD, but that is 
> not true for the JDK either) for any 4.1 component to run in a 4.2 
> container.
> I think that would make the changes to the container fairly managable, 
> but heck, I haven't checked all the containers, and some perhaps defer 
> the creation of these artifacts until after the components has been 
> created.
> 
> 
>> But that aside, a very real issue is that Avalon Framework is a 
>> product that several projects rely on.
> 
> 
> Assuming that the 'enhancement' can be fairly easily implemented in the 
> various containers and I admit that the process wasn't exposed enough 
> (since no code was changed in Framework), would you be ok with that we 
> introduce a Framework Icon in the Products column on the Home page, 
> which links into the Life Cycle specification and Javadocs of Avalon 
> Framework??
> 
> Is this amicable?

I believe so.

-- 

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to 
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to 
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
                 - Rich Cook


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


Mime
View raw message