At 05:23 26/2/01 -0800, Federico Barbieri wrote: >It's a general rule it's better to have primitive than composite >packages... because they don't have dependencies and they enforce SOC. I >may like the avalon.pool interfaces but I don't want to inherit all >component contracts. This make perfect sense.
The problem is that if you want to place anything in a CM then it needs to implement Component - which is why some people I talked to said either *everything* should implement component or *nothing* should implement component and the CM should deal with objects. Thats the main reason why Pool etal extend Component. >So my first question is: container is right now a composite since uses >component. Is it right? Can we have a container package unaware of >components? If so it's critical not to mix contracts and clean it. See above. Remember that container (which I still thinkg should be camelot) is not just a container package but has other things like deployment (and will have installing when I differentiate between install/deploy). If we want to call it conatiner it should be further differentaited but I think it will lead to confusion (hence the abstract name that has no semantic connotations). Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
