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 Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:06:51 GMT
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@adeptra.com>
> 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?

The views seem to be (generalising):
- Avalon people want lifecycle in Avalon
- Many commons people instantly -1 the moment 'lifecycle' is mentioned
- I have said that lifecycle type interfaces COULD go in [pattern]

There is a degree of confusion however. Lifecycle to an Avalon person means
a particular set of interfaces that mean VERY precisely defined things in a
contract that works ACROSS interfaces. When I talk about putting lifecycle
type interfaces in [pattern] I mean interfaces that are INDEPENDENT of one
another, not part of a framework.

Is there really something scary about saying that if a class can be
initialised then the method name should be initialize()?? As a standalone
interface?


What if the lifecycle type interfaces were in [pattern] ??  The Avalon
interfaces still exist - they extend the Commons version not to add extra
methods, but to add the cross-interface lifecycle contract that is at the
heart of Avalon.

Re-read that last paragraph. Then read it again.

If you understood it then everyone should be happy.
- Lifecycle, as a framework, is in Avalon.
- Lifecycle pattern interfaces are in [pattern].

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