> > On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 01:44, Peter Donald wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >But if Avalon is used we're
> > > >using one version. What if a user of FOP someone
> wants/needs to use
> > > >a different version of Avalon?
> > >
> > > If A5 eventuates it will be possible via a compatability
> layer so in
> > > theory
> > > all should be good. However to ensure this is the case I
> would encourage
> > > you to;
> > > * Use ServiceManager interface rather than
> ComponentManager (And don't use
> > > Component marker interface)
> > > * Use LogEnabled rather than Loggable to aquire Loggers
> > > * Don't use ServiceManager.release()
> > >
> > > If you do the above then everything should be forward compatible.
> > > One thing
> > > you may want to also do if you can is avoid the marker
> interfaces like
> > > ThreadSafe etc.
> > >
I'd say it is too early to come up with recommendations for A5,
as we have very little clue as to what A5 will look like.
Since some of the points you raise are regarding those areas that
are *most* hotly debated (release(), ComponentManager),
I say go on as you did, *with* Component, ComponentManager, and
release(). (LogEnabled is nice, though.) Otherwise
you'll end up with an ungodly mixture of architectures.
No, you will not be left behind in A5. Seriously, if we
release A5 and it makes all A4 code obsolete or require changes -
who will upgrade? 100% user base loss.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
