On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:16, Peter M. Goldstein wrote: > I guess our disagreement is that I believe that there is substantial > common ground here, and that it would be of tremendous value to formally > define it. I don't know if you agree - from your comments I don't think > you do.
I do. I even started to write up a document describing the parts that could be shared. See http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/info/context.html > i) Documentation - If the common ground is formalized, then users don't > have to "try it and see" as to whether their components will work in a > particular container. Formalizing and clarifying the shared territories > makes all the containers better. Making it possible for a container to > declare exactly what subset of this common ground it supports allows > component authors and deployers to quickly and intelligently evaluate > containers Right. The mechanism for components to declare their requirements is documented at http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/info/index.html The mechanism for components/containers to declare "features" that they support is documented at http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/info/features.html Feel free to submit patches to add bits where you think additions can be made. -- Cheers, Peter Donald Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it binds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
