commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <>
Subject Re: [pattern] Pattern charter, whats in, whats out
Date Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:55:33 GMT
From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
> In fact we have decided out of experience that marker interfaces "are
> bad (TM)", and so we have also decided to deprecate the marker Component
> interface.

This is where I am at with Immutable. This will disppear from [pattern] real
soon now.

> >>Group 3 -Bean style patterns:
> >>- Identifiable, (also Resetable, Destroyable, Initializable,
> >>StateChangeable, EmptyQueryable, Saveable, Loadable, ...
> >
> > That seems avalon-like to me.
> All these are 100% Avalon, and you would get a lightning fast -1000 from
> me. We already have many of these interfaces, and they were discussed
> more than 99% of programmers could tollerate ;-) .

Thats really what this thread is about - Pattern charter. Defining exactly
which to include ans which to exclude.

> >>My preference is thus as follows:
> >>Group 1 becomes part of [lang]
> >
> > I think collections may be a better place, if they need it.
> > [lang] is great as long as it defines utils - if it gets into marker
> > interface business, then we have a problem.
> Collections?
> Gee, wierd.
> Lang is about Utils... and util?
> I would keep them in pattern, since they are to use Patterns.
> Or are you two mixing 3 with 1?

Somehow, group 3 and group 1 must be separated. My solution is move group 1
to [lang]. They are basic utility interfaces, thats just where they should

> >>Group 3 becomes [pattern], in the sandbox, not depended on, not in the
> >>upcoming core.jar
> AAAAgghhhhhh >:-O
> -1000000000000
> You want to put Avalon in commons!

No. If Avalon has all of these, then great. [pattern] ceases to exist. But
there may yet be some patterns that are non-lifecycle and non-utility that
don't fit in either camp.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message