Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Jeff Turner wrote:
Does this seem like a viable solution? We are trying to get a feel
for the best action from this point forward.
Why deprecating this interface in the first place? I don't see how
presence of (non-deprecated) Component interface may impose limitations
on Avalon's future.
Deprecation is a tool used to steer people away from APIs that have
fallen out of favor. It is not so much a question of limitations,
it is a question of pointing people to the better solution.
One reason for not requiring the Component interface is to support
systems that integrate CORBA components in with your Avalon components.
A CORBA interface is not expressed as a Java interface, but as an IDL
interface. Also CORBA components tend to have already been written
by someone else or are proprietary. That means we can't extend the
code because we do not have the sourcecode.
Furthermore, the Component interface does limit things. Just because
a class or interface doesn't implement the Component interface doesn't
keep it from being a component. On the flip side, just because a class
or interface _does_ extend the Component interface doesn't make it a
component.
Removing the dependency on an interface that does not provide any
functionality opens the doors for new possibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
