commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>
Subject Re: The exegesis
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:12:06 GMT
On 8/11/02 7:06 PM, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
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

Not hard to understand. :)

> - Many commons people instantly -1 the moment 'lifecycle' is mentioned

I'm pretty much against a commons-framework, yes.  Not sure I have the same
feelings about a lifecycle package, except if that implies "Thou must follow
this in commons".  Otherwise, it's just a component in commons.

> - 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.

Ok.
 
> 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?

No, as long as you don't say that I should use it (and I am not suggesting
that is the case.)
 
> 
> 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.

Don't these already exist in Avalon as interfaces anyway, and the
cross-interface contract is just that, an understanding?  I don't know how
you might mechanically enforce something deeper in Java.
 
> 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].

I have trouble understanding the technical difference, as a lifecycle
interface package could exist in avalon, independent of the 'social'
contract of the framework practiced by Avalon.

I was just wondering what the huff was about.  Thanks for the explanation of
your POV.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. 
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713



--
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