cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Proposal a new OJB block
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:21:39 GMT

On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 10:42 Europe/Rome, Reinhard Poetz wrote:

>> 2. in case such need exists, I'd rather see a "persistence"
>> block with a
>> set of different implementations (OJB being just one of those).
> I would really like to see this too. The problem is that AFAIK the 
> other
> possible ORB frameworks are either commercial or don't have a ASF
> compatible licence. Although +1 for "persistence" instead of OJB.


I would suggest you start with describing the 'implementation' of the 
block (so OJB) and later (when we have the real block setup in place) 
we start creating the behavioral abstractions.

So +1 to OJB, -1 to "persistence" as the name of block.

This is a general rule: if you want to do some block, first you start 
with the implementation, then, would the need emerge (say another block 
implements more or less the same features but in a different way), a 
block behavior will be created.

Starting with defining the interfaces before the classes is the root of 
all evil overcomponentization anti-patterns. And it's only asking for 
trouble in the solidity of that behavioral contract.


View raw message