Paul Hammant wrote:
Berin,
Concidering the fact that most Avalon systems automatically determine
the lifecycles
of the components, I am wondering if we should strive to maintain 100%
backwards
compatibility for lifecycle interfaces. The issue is brought to light
due to the
LogEnabled interface.
Should it be concidered backwards compatible for a *Component* to
change it's lifecycle
interfaces?
Err sorry to be pedandtic, but do you mean ...
Should it be a goal for Components to maintain backwards
compatibility of their lifecycle interfaces?
OR
Is the changing of lifecycle interfaces considered to be backwards
compatible?
Either way the effect is the same.
Should I have the ability to change a lifecycle interface without it being
concidered backwards incompatible.
This does not apply to regular classes and containers. This is only
for Components,
And only, mostly to Excalibur I guess.
Regards,
- Paul H
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
