> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Simons > > lifecycle extensions are but one way of several setups > currently in use > for accomplishing a certain goal. So the lifecycle stuff is not a > "standard extension" of avalon-framework, just "an extension".
While there are many ways to handle lifecycle extensions, there are many ways of handling configuration, initialization, contextualization, logging and so on but we still have settled on just one way in Avalon. That there are several ways to accomplish one goal should not keep up from stating that "well, *this* is how we do it in Avalon". It was my understanding that the instrument package was an extension that would be handled via the lifecycle extension package instead of moving it (the instrument package) into Framework. I can see the rationale for standardizing lifecycle extensions, so, in my opinion, they should definitely be in framework. Not in an extension, not in a standard extension, but in framework. /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
