> Berin and I were through this debate when we created Fortress. Ah, read up on this...wonder why I missed all that.
Anyways, this discussion was very focused on implementation. That is something I consider of secondary interest here. It just seems that there is this undocumented concept of "component lifestyle" that we should capture in some way, just like we did with the lifecycle. Whether we do so using marker interfaces, more concrete interfaces, custom javadoc tags or xml descriptors is not my concern atm (though doing so using XML means an automatic added complexity layer as you need an xml parser etc etc). I feel fortress goes some way into capturing this, as do our other containers, as does "Developing with Avalon", but the concept is not as rock-solid as it should be. > My point is this: Some of the interfaces you propose define different > things. True (and there's no proposal, just thoughts). The thing they have in common is that they are, or can be, of concern to the container, while not being part of the component lifecycle definition. I'm sure that once we formalize the lifestyle, we will identify more clearly these kinds of container concerns. Also, once we do so, we can point out which of those concerns a particular container addresses. cheers, - Leo PS: while it is pragmatic, it'd be nice if you wouldn't address me as "Simons"...reminds me too much of annoying 8th grade school teachers :D -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
