Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stephen,
Reading quickly because I've got a Willy Wonka schedule today, but if your argument is that things like Instrument are non-core extensions, sort of an javax type thing, then I agree. Scalable extensibility starts at the framework level. There are core interfaces and standard extensions.
Hi Noel:
Yes. These are the parallels I'm referring to. Something like the instrumentation suite is an extension - and to handle that properly we need an extension mechanism. A framework extension mechanism exists in the sandbox. Another alternative is to handle framework extension via meta but that would take longer. At the end of the day the two mechanisms (lifecycle extensions and meta info) can coexist. In terms of immediate requirements relating to Fortress and ECM dependencies relative to Instrument, I would put the release of the lifecycle; extensions ahead of instrument, then update instrument to use the lifecycle extensions. This enables a good separation of framework from extension mechanisms and has no negative impact on APIs.
Cheers, Steve.
--- Noel
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
