It doesn't really elong in framework. It is an othogonal concern to components lifecycle and shouldn't be in framework (much like persistence and other concerns).
I don't actually use it but hear it is good :) - if we want to get more components/containers supporting that I think we could achieve that by releasing it and upgrading all the containers to at least provide basic support for it. On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:29, Leo Sutic wrote: > > 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. > > 2. The instrument package may be release separately or bundled > with the framework jar. We don't decide on this now. > > Regarding exactly which interfaces in (1), let's postpone that as > well - I just want to know if there's any consensus to put > instrument in framework. We can decide on the exact way of putting > it there later. > > /LS > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cheers, Peter Donald ---------------------------------------------- Money is how people with no talent keep score. ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
