commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The exegesis
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 06:57:04 GMT
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> 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

Avalon folks *HAVE* lifecycle in Avalon.
Before Commons came along, Avalon *was* the Java Apache Commons.

> - 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?

Useless and confusing.
There is NO TECHNICAL NEED of having interfaces like these.

> 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.

You read it, and try to understand.

Why the heck should we extend the Commons version?!?!
Tell me a TECHNICAL need. A REAL one though.

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

Gee, if you need them, go ahead and do them, but you will keep getting 
-1s from me and probably the rest of the world.

You need those interfaces.

USE THEM! THEY ARE IN AVALON! >:-//

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--
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