cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <>
Subject RE: [RT] Cocoon component container and excalibur
Date Thu, 03 Jun 2004 06:55:25 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> You have to consider two very different things:
>> - the Avalon framework APIs (LogEnabled, Serviceable,
>> Configurable, etc.)
>> - the container that implements the framework behaviour
>> Although the container implementation may change, there's a
>> strong commitment to the framework APIs as this is what we've
>> used and invested in for many years.
>> So even if a new container comes with new features (e.g. IOC
>> type 2/3), it will also have to implement the Avalon
>> framework behaviour. We cannot trash years of use of this API
>> overnight.
> I don't want to freak out again but if you look at the discussions
> about the block implementations, there were a lot of discussions
> to also remove the framework api from the block system. So if you
> want to use the benefit of blocks, you can't use the avalon
> framework api for your components. And I still think this is bad.
> Anyways, if for example we would move to Fortress (without using
> the meta-info stuff and keeping our current configuration files
> which is possible!) we could add own lifecycle interfaces over
> time and provide a smooth migration path to whatever comes with
> blocks.

Thanks Carsten, this exactly what I remember. It moves me to write the RT.
This seems to be still not cleared. BTW, sorry for start the same again.
;) I think it is time to make some decisions. The development stall if we
don't decide how to go and the clock is ticking.

I wanted to include in the RT a question about Excalibur, as Gianugo said,
Excalibur is a TLP now and ask if is worth to collaborate there while we
(Cocoon) are switching out of it.

This are the things that disturb me now.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo

View raw message