Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bloritsch 2003/03/11 05:29:30
avalon-excalibur/lifecycle/src - New directory
Berin:
This should be under the avalon CVS, not excalibur. It not a utility - it's a couple of interfaces that define extensions to the framework contract.
:/ I don't think you are going to get consensus on that.
Lets' discuss it and see.
Esp. since
by the time we are done with handling these things, they might go
away.
Sorry - I'm using extensions and I'm not about to drop support for extensions.
Peter's interceptor ideas have merit, and with the advent of utilities like CGLib, it makes it really easy to use interceptors.
I understand your position, but in order to get a release RSN I
suggest going with the least radical path towards adoption.
I'm tempted to say that this strategy will backfire. Even we are releasing the lifecycle package or not. If we release it we should do it properly. If we are not releasing it then you should kill of referenced to extension in Fortress. I don't know if this is viable or not in Fortress - I do know that (a) interfaces are required in Merlin, and (b) that the interfaces have been validated and have proved functional and valuable.
Currently the avalon CVS contains the framework. This does not mean that framework is the only project at this level. We have already discussed the need to start work on the seperation of framework imp and interfaces which means we will rapidly being seeing the emergence of at least two projects in framework. The lifecycle extension simply belong at this level. I am not suggesting that the extension interfaces be included in framework - only that that the extension package belongs in the avalon cvs - not excalibur.
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]
