Hi all, Your discussion remind me something that seems very important to me about lifecycle extension.
As i see the two lifecycle extension interfaces, there is no mean to impose a specific order while applying the extensions. This means that a lifecycle extension provider has no mean to tell the lifecycle extension manager when it must be applied relatively (in time) to other extensions during a specified stage. (Example : Serviceable.service() before Initializable.initialize() even if they are at the same stage.) I think the combination of lifecycle extensions is a use case we must think about. For example in an attempt to implement core avalon lifecycle with the lifecycle extension mechanism you will need this kind of ordering specification. I would think the resolution of the order as a kind of incremental ordering while extensions are discovered (at the container *boot* time). This may be compared to the serialization of the order of some modules' compilation based on their respective dependencies. To conclude, i personally think the lifecycle extension mechanism needs to be more thought, even if i find it usefull and the portability it can provide for containers very attractive. Cheers, A+. Didier. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
