On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:57, Leo Simons wrote: > It has been shown that there is need for additional non-standard > lifecycle stages to <insert requirment here> write some components. To > keep these components portable across containers, the code that supports > the extension should also be portable across containers. To make that > happen we indeed need to make sacrifices, mainly feature flexibility.
So you believe that lowering of quality is good long term strategy. Interesting ... I remember also thinking that way when I stopped arguing about ComponentSelector, Component marker interface or those ThreadSafe/Poolable/Other marker interfaces. Now everyone generally thinks they are blights. So you think it was great idea to do that? > > ANd would you mandate that it be > > added into all containers or that containers could not implement it using > > alternative strategies? > > nah. It just seems to me that "the most simple solution that could > possibly work, in 90% of cases" would be nice to have in the framework. If we followed that rule, ECM would be in framework CVS. That would be great would it not? -- Cheers, Peter Donald *------------------------------------------------------* | Despite your efforts to be a romantic hero, you will | | gradually evolve into a postmodern plot device. | *------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
