Hi Leo:
See notes in-line...
Leo Sutic wrote:
-1
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Simons
Finally, this is our "last chance" to move the instrument package into org.apache.avalon.framework space, if we want to do that. Last time we talked about it we didn't want to IIRC. Anything changed? From the perspective of the instrument package, it makes sense.
OK, let's run a quick vote for this in order to gauge consensus.
Proposal:
1. The interfaces from the instrument package should move into the
org.apache.avalon.framework namespace.
On the question of positioning:
a) I think that the instrument package belongs at the framework
"level" as do things like the mata info APIs and lifecycle
extension mechanisms because they concern the contract between
the component and the container b) I do not think that instrumentation should be included into
"the" framework level via package name inference.2. The instrument package may be release separately or bundled with the framework jar. We don't decide on this now.
I would like to see a release of the instrumentation package once we have (a) a client and server implementation working in the same virtual machine independently of a plugin transport, and (b) separation of transport out of the client package as it stands or if not possible - moving the instrument client to altrmi. I would be positive towards a separately packaged framework "level" release (where "level" simply addresses the abstract notion of positioning within the broad spectrum of Avalon content).
I would be opposed to bundling with the framework before some real consideration of how lifecycle extensions could be apply this functionality without requiring modification to framework contracts at this level of granularity.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
