commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Berin Loritsch" <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [pattern][lang] Calling thee, O Good Lords of Avalon...
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:31:11 GMT
> From: ola.berg@arkitema.se [mailto:ola.berg@arkitema.se] 
> 
> ... please consider listen to an unworthy [common] low-life peasant:


LOL!  ;P

You really think we're that stuck up?


> >2. there are already projects in commons that define interfaces, like
> >commons-logging and commons-discovery, etc
> 
> I then request permission of you, mighty Masters, to use such 
> interfaces of such great value without having to depend on 
> the whole high-level package, if You don\'t mind.

How is this directed to the "Good Lords of Avalon"?


> >> I personally think enums should be in collections - but in any case
> >> as long as they are \'utils\' you use, not new interfaces 
> ( Iterator is 
> >> just fine for interface ). I think commons is ok.
> 
> > +1
> 
> Sire, some of us unworthy peasants like to use enumerated 
> types (like in C code of the Ancient Times), and therefore 
> created an Enum class. I hope you don\'t mind the name 
> resembling the ol\' iterator of arcane Java named 
> \'Enumeration\', which as you so wisely pointed out, 
> Honorable Knight, belongs in a collections package. 

Probably true.


> >Not design patterns, but arbitrary interfaces and
> >then attempts to get people to use those interfaces - things like
> >Factory, Identifier, Immutable, Identifiable, Command, 
> Predicate, etc.
> >They probably belong in avalon or another project, I 
> personally don\'t 
> >think commons is the right place. Sorry. 
> 
> Oh Sire, I hope we, low-level creatures as we are, did upset 
> your feelings when we dare come up with such a bold proposal. 
> It is just that the common interfaces we discuss already are 
> in numerous of projects, among peasants that is, so we just 
> thougth that we could help each other by sharing them. It is 
> not much, we know, but a lowly peasant don\'t have a full 
> blown frame-work at his hands. 

I need to go back and see who said it needs to be in Avalon.
I know I didn't....


> >AAAAgghhhhhh >:-O
> >-1000000000000
> >You want to put Avalon in commons!
> 
> Excuse me Sire, don\'t kill me, please don\'t kill me! I 
> forgot that You, knights of Avalon have total monopoly on 
> object life cycle methods and that no other mechanism of 
> object configuration, object recycling, object 
> identification, object pooling, object transformation object 
> foobarilaization are tolerated in this great country of yours. 
> 
> As the charter clearly states at jakarta.apache.org:
> 
> \"Life cycle mechanisms belong in Avalon and Avalon only. If 
> you want to do component life cycle management, do it the 
> Avalon way, using the Avalon classes or don\'t. There will 
> never be another component framework or part thereof on this 
> part of the Earth than Microsof.. I mean Avalon\"


Well, I do have to agree that Avalon does not belong in Commons,
but it should work *with* Commons as much as possible.  The commons
charter expressly forbids frameworks, which Avalon is definitely
a framework.  Its existence in Commons would break its high and
mighty charter ;P

Keep in mind also that the Avalon containers are converging on a
standard way of extending the default lifecycle.  Therefore, if
you want to totally ignore the Avalon lifecycle, and use your
own lifecycle, you can--and still take advantage of the hard
work us "knights of the roundtable" have provided for you.

> 
> /O
> (who actually likes Avalon)


You do?  Kool!


--
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