Hi Leo, Leo Simons wrote:
>>We're starting to use Avalon > > > you like it so far? Yes. It is the sort of thing we have done with our own framework, but more advanced and formalized. I like the general model and separation of concerns and belive it to be well suited for supporting a CORBA server framework > >>and have components that require persistent >>initialization (creation of table/entries) and destruction (removal of said >>tables/entries). I was wondering why this is not supported as a framework >>activity interface? > > > there hasn't been enough need, I guess...besides it would make the > framework considerably more complex. Everything specified as an > 'official' lifecycle interface is something that needs to work in every > application. Since database portability is JNP (just not possible), we'd > have to include a database activation/passivation abstraction layer > within the framework as well. I wasn't actually thinking of how a component actually did it's own persistence, simply of modelling state transition operations in a simple interface. I was assuming that a persistent component would itself uses another configured component for persistence but that this mechanism would still in effect be coded within the persistent component (typically calls to a database via JDBC). You've given me a few more things to look at. I'm still coming up to speed on some of this stuff :-) Thanks Steve. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
