On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 00:08, Pete Carapetyan wrote: > >>What are the objectives, if they are more than re-use? Can you identify > >>them? > >> > >> > > > >stuff like: > > > >- clean code > >- common program flow in code > >- instant well-designed architecture > >- speed > > > True, but hardly unique to the goals of Avalon. These are goals of any > good software. Non COP coders claim these objectives as well, and the > 2nd and 3rd are also attributes of Re-Use as well as mutually exclusive > objectives.
the difference: we accomplish them better ;) > Berin is on the money. The use cases are the key. What are the use cases > for Avalon? What are use cases where Avalon is not appropriate? What is > the common thread for each. The core framework Avalon promotes and facilitates is appropriate wherever you write java software. It would also be appropriate in C#, C++ (if it were feasible, which it is probably not). AspectJ has gone down the route of providing an extension to the core java language. Avalon could have been implemented that way as well; which we haven't done for obvious reasons. use cases for avalon framework: any software use cases for avalon excalibur: any server-like software use cases for avalon phoenix: server software, server software frameworks use cases for avalon fortress: server software Hence the extreme difficulty in coming up with the framework interfaces and contracts. All use cases are valid, the only thing that can be bad is how to satisfy the use cases. Only when you talk about more specific bits than you are hinting at (for example, valid use cases for the Composable interface), can a little more concrete discussion take place. regards, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
