Stephen McConnell wrote:
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.
I did not say that we would not be able to support extending the
lifecycle. All I am saying is that the is a possibility of doing
it in a more elegant way in the future.
I also am using extensions for my GUIApp project over at SourceForge.
Vincent has been helping me make it sing--including support for an
event bus and more. I myself don't want to see them go away.
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.
We need to release it. I would be able to kill off the reference to
it in Fortress, BUT then I would lose instrumentation support (I have
a InstrumentableCreator that takes care of the integration).
The question is *where* do they go. I really don't think that they
should be in Avalon Framework. They kind of have the same conundrum
as the Instrument package. They are a set of interfaces, which can
be used in other projects. Both of these projects sit between
Framework and the components/containers.
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.
Can you put up a proposal for it? I already did the vote for moving it
to excalibur, to which I believe you gave your +1. I was not aware that
you felt it should be in the "Avalon" repository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
