I think we're not full circle just yet. Don't try and shelf the discussion; there may still be some valuable knowledge to be gained/transferred.
Some things you propose are still proposals, where you simply assume that they are the only option. I feel the normal voting process is the best way to handle each of these. specific response: > Our focus should be now on refining the meta-model, and refining the > container/component contracts. The developer needs to see *in the > implementation* the interface that the component depends on, and the > creational policy for the component. There are several other areas that deserve focus as well, like documentation and examples. > Lastly, I would like to bring two more points to the table: > * We should consider an additional lifecycle for a persistence layer. I think if we want something like this it would be good to take a look at the "custom marker proposal" (bad name) Marcus is working on, and try and integrate. > * reference implementation for a session object. This is how stateful > session beans (EJB spec) and servlets manage state in an otherwise > stateless environment. It is also how they can manage to be used by > multiple threads or contexts of execution simultaneously. We should > put together a reference implentation of this in excalibur and then > vote whether it should be incorporated as part of Framework (at least > the defining interfaces). which raises another question: should we have optional interfaces (ones a container doesn't really have to recognize) in framework or not? - Leo Simons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
