> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:26, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:35, Leo Simons wrote: > > > > agreed. However, defining a container API that allows > > > > > > plugging of any > > > > > > > facility using an event- or pipeline- like architecture > > > > > > seems a nice > > > > > > > idea, and the current work to enable this is definately > > > > > > moving in the > > > > > > > right direction. > > > > > > I remember quite a few people remarking how Component marker > > > interface was a good idea, or ComponentSelector was a > great idea, or > > > that all the Poolable, > > > Threadsafe etc interfaces were good ideas. Is this idea good > > > in the same way? > > > I think a little wider testing is needed before you could > adopt it. > > > > Uh, Component was legacy, from before either of us started using > > Avalon. > > And I wanted it removed before we went beta but that was vetoed. > > > Poolable was your interface if I am not mistaken? > > Maybe or possibly Stefanos. > > > I personally > > didn't care one way or the other until it caused problems > and I had to > > create my own pooling code. > > What are you talking about?! I had to argue for weeks with > you to remove it > from framework. The compromise was that you could keep the > ThreadSafe in > framework.
I was talking about Poolable. I know Giacomo and other Cocooner's wanted to get the "lifestyle" for the components nailed down. I supported getting something done sooner than later. Bottom line is that we have learned our lesson, and we are coming along with the solution--but it is slow in coming. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
