commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Massol" <vmas...@octo.com>
Subject Avalon Framework in commons ? (was RE: The exegesis)
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:10:43 GMT
In my vision, all jakarta components would benefit from using lifecycle
interfaces. I would also be very much in favor of having a very very
lightweight component manager available for all these components.

If we had this, I believe both the quality of our code (IOC pattern
really rules and makes the software really configurable for all needs
from the outside which is probably a very good things for jakarta code)
and ease the understanding of our code for anyone looking at it: clear,
well-known interfaces, etc.

I believe the Avalon project provides several pieces of this puzzle: the
Avalon Framework itself and maybe one of its component manager (aka
container).

However, this would mean that any user downloading any framework from
commons would need to also have Avalon Framework + lightweight component
manager. In the same spirit as almost anyone getting a commons framework
needs commons-logging. For that to work, I believe it would be much
easier for the Avalon Framework to be in commons. Same with that
lightweight component manager.

What would still be outside (as is now) are the more complex containers
like Phonenix and the others. I would also envision that once Avalon
framework becomes a Commons component, then all Excalibur components can
find their place in commons as separate components, in much the same way
as existing commons components.

So my vision is Avalon Framework everywhere :-) but for that to happen I
believe it has to be in commons as it would be common to every
component. 

I'll sure get a lof of flames from both camps but think about it, as I
think it is in the best interest of everyone :

- Avalon is used throughout the whole jakarta and by everyone using any
component of commons (probably without them even knowing), thus
spreading its knowledge

- Commons gets its lifecycle framework (Avalon framework)

- Users get real components, that implement best practices that everyone
agrees on (especially IOC - I hope you do agree with IOC, right ? :-))
and they get better quality, more easy to read and understand code.

[Yes, one of the very nice effect of IOC is that it makes unit testing
them a breeze]

Let's see the flames ...
<putting my flamesuit on>

Cheers,
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@adeptra.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2002 23:44
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: The exegesis
> 
> On 8/11/02 6:26 PM, "Vincent Massol" <vmassol@octo.com> wrote:
> 
> > I haven't been following the discussion, but I agree with you :
Avalon
> > Framework should be in Commons
> 
> I haven't followed either, but just explain the above - why should
Avalon
> Framework be in commons?  Do the avalon people want it in commons?
Why
> don't they want it in Avalon?
> 
> 
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr.
> Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
> geirm@adeptra.com
> +1-203-247-1713
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message