On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 23:08 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > Oh, this is a tough one...
> - library-ness - if this were a library that assisted with state > handling, with an optional ability to read from the scxml format, then > that might fit better with a commons library style component an interesting point i see no reason why a component should be discounted just because it implements a specification but what we're looking for is a good component which happen to be useful for a specification. this is associated with the naming: we're more interested in a good lightweight state machine library than the fact that it can be loaded from a SCXML document. stephen's point about the naming is related: the component should be a lightweight state engine first and foremost. so commons-state would be more descriptive. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
