On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: <snip/>
> I would like to see three containers, each one of them extending the one > underneath. > > - basic container > - embeddable container > - standalone container Sounds feasible. > the first should fit with the framework to provide a reasonable > lightweight system for simple avalon uses (no fancy stuff like pooling > or anything). > > users of this basic implementation should be the people willing to learn > avalon or use it in their own stuff but without fancy features. > > the second should be the juicy implementation of the avalon framework, > but should remain embeddable. Since it extends the basic framework, > every change applied to the framework reflects up. > > users of this implementation will be projects that use avalon > extensively but internally (as an embedded COP system) > > the third should be the biggest implementation, extending the second and > providing standalone running capabilities. > > users of this implementation will be projects that are run directly by > avalon with full IoC. > > Tweety can be the first > A mix of Merlin and Fortress can be the second > Phoenix can be the third >From the container point of view, yes, this makes sense. From the ComponentManager implementation point of view (as it is today) Phoenix used to use a much more lightweighter CM implementation as i.e. Fortress does. Remember: Fortress is the next generation ECM with all fancy stuff like pooling etc. Phoenix never ever wanted to have that (not even Selectors). > Note that this is more a community vision than a technical vision. All > technical decisions will be made *after* this vote is taken. Ok. > > So, do you like this vision? would you like it to happen? Sure. Giacomo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
