Leo Simons wrote:
you should not be worrying about cvs structure so much. End users don't see it. We should use the cvs setup that makes it easiest to develop.
In the meantime, responding to the implied "lifecycle extensions are part of the framework":
Correction - I'm not implying that "lifecycle extensions are part of the framework" - if fact I've said the opposite.
I do happen to think that people are confusing avalon CVS with Avalon Framework - whicb is perhaps natural because currently avalon framework is the only thing in the avalon CVS.
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".
I agree.
So, what is the point you are raising?
How does this address the question of where the appropriate place is for two interfaces that only deal with framework contract extension?
Cheers, Steve.
cheers,
- Leo
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.
Cheers, Steve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
