Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 04:29, Leo Sutic wrote:
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo SimonsOK, let's run a quick vote for this in order to gauge consensus.
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.
Proposal:
1. The interfaces from the instrument package should move into the
org.apache.avalon.framework namespace.
Why would you make instrumentation part of the core of Avalon? That seems very wrong to me. I would rather see some flexible extension mechanism where things like instrumentation and management can be added easily. But wiring the notion of instrumentation in at the framework level doesn't seem right.
This exists - "The Lifecycle Extension Package" - its supported by both Merlin and Fortress and it in the avalon-sandbox/lifecycle package. The package provides explicit support for the addition of a lifecycle stage handler - and I'm confident that the instrumentation implementation could easily be adapter to support this mechanism.
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]
