commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <>
Subject Re: [clazz] Scope?
Date Sun, 27 Oct 2002 06:05:22 GMT
John Yu wrote:

> If a generic metaclass framework is the goal, I'd suggest to take a look 
> of some existing meta-object protocols (MOP) as they have strong 
> theoretical foundations. Two MOPs come to my minds are IBM's SOM C++ 
> metaclass framework 
> ( 
> and OpenJava (
> Anyway, back to my question: Do we need to clarify the scope?

BTW, my beef with OpenJava is the same beef that Sun had with M$.  They
extend the language requiring a new compiler.  Unfortunately the whole
concept of attribute enabled classes requires special compilation.

Personally, I would like to see the "clazz" project focus on delegation
and attribute enabled classes.  That is a very generic and powerful set
of tools.  A more specific one can be built on top of it for JavaBeans.
I think the "bean/dynabean" stuff should be a different project as it
is not as generic (all that code would go unused in the Avalon component


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin

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

View raw message