Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 11061 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2004 14:43:10 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Apr 2004 14:43:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 890 invoked by uid 500); 8 Apr 2004 14:43:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 839 invoked by uid 500); 8 Apr 2004 14:43:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 816 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2004 14:42:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.s-und-n.de) (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Apr 2004 14:42:59 -0000 Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 418F319F6BC for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:43:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0386 ([10.10.2.54]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 6.5) with ESMTP id 2004040816362344-40805 ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:36:23 +0200 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: [Kernel22] How to develop a component? Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:45:21 +0200 Organization: S&N AG MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <006501c41d77$89d1fa90$0801a8c0@lagrange> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcQddqaA05RiUdoFTPm6TwH1znH2XQAAWJeQ X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 6.5|September 26, 2003) at 08.04.2004 16:36:23, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 6.5|September 26, 2003) at 08.04.2004 16:36:24, Serialize complete at 08.04.2004 16:36:24 Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Leo Sutic wrote: > > > From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziegeler@s-und-n.de] > > > > So, if I understand you correctly, the only difference is > that I can > > get an exception that I wasn't prepared to get when using Avalon. > > Yep, that's pretty much it. > > > If that's try then I don't see any reason why this wouldn't > work with > > using the Avalon interfaces - I'm just speaking of the > interfaces not > > the implementation! > > It will work, but the thing is that people have started > assuming that some things will work in certain ways. > > So while the interfaces will work in practice, they won't in > theory, since there are some semantics that are gone. > Okay, I see - so as long as I don't reload a block, it's pretty much the same. Thanks, Leo! Carsten