Pete Carapetyan wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
>>> Not fair to cite SoC or IoC or Separation of Interface and
>>> Implementation. They still make sense, but only because the objective
>>> is assumed as common sense.
>>>
>>
>>
>> that's your stance on it.
>>
>>
> Not much of a stance, as stance implies that I believe in what I am
> saying. More like a tentative viewpoint looking for opposing
> clarifications.
>
> I must an attempt to separate what from how. I get lost in the how,
> fried my brain in a previous life. So now I have to be very careful to
> separate what from how, otherwise I get stuck in how and lose track of
> what. Happens to others also, I've noticed.
>
> Berin is right on. He keeps trying to bring it back to the use cases.
> They all seem like re-use to me. But my handicap has already been
> identified, maybe brighter folks can point out other objectives than I
> am seeing.
>
> What are the objectives, if they are more than re-use? Can you identify
> them?
Avalon is an API that, correctly implemented and used, makes better,
cleaner, easier and more manageable software.
-Better: it enforces good programming practices: IOC, SOC, etc---
-Cleaner: COP
-Easier: intuitive and clean APIS
-Manageable: Component-Container
It has reference implementation of components that help implement it
(Excalibur), and a reference implementation of a server (since we're at
Apache, let's not forget it ;-)
I started using Avalon API in an app of mine that din't use it at first,
and in 2 days I found myself, without understanding really why, with a
really cool system. The API really enforced good practices!
The power of Avalon is in the API.
That's why we fight (we are knights) over the API, rarely over the
implementations.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
