commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: The exegesis
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:15:19 GMT
From: <costinm@covalent.net>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 rsitze@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > More fuel for the fire:
> >
> > 1.  discovery is a (functional) pattern...
> > 2.  discovery provides component life-cycle support
(SingletonService)...
>
> I didn't noticed it. That should be removed - there is no need
> for it.
>
> I'll change my vote on the release of discovery to -1 until this gets
> fixed. It should implement the 'services' spec but
> shouldn't define any API for the services to implement.
>
>
> > which, of course, raises the obvious question:  should it?  How many
> > life-cycle interface does a component have to implement??
>
> It shouldn't. Various applications that use discovery may define
> lifecycle - for example JAXP defines how a parser is created ( factory,
> etc ), ant defines the lifecycle of a project helper, etc. That's between
> the application and the components, discovery must only find the classes.

Just to prove that there are many POV, I have just looked at discovery and
see nothing wrong. Interfaces and plugin points are already part of many
commons projects. (In fact they are a part of just about every successful
open source API. Maybe its the commons charter thats too tightly worded?

Stephen


--
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