On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:49, Stephen McConnell wrote:
* the release of the avalon-lifecycle package shall be considered as an "optional" extension to the framework contracts
-1
It is the same approach that has been done before and failed and can't cleanly produce some aspects like delayed activation, passivation, persistence, transaction demarcation, bifuricating interception etc.
These are aspects that are best taken care of using your interceptor approach. However for simpler problems like EventBusEnabled (allowing the container to set the EventBus for each component that needs it) it is just the ticket.
Furthermore, the lifecycle package addresses a common need in both Fortress and Merlin--alowing for a smooth migration path for users as they upgrade their containers.
The important thing is for the near to mid term it is a solution that works immediately (the simplist approach), and for the long term can still easily be supported with the interceptor approach.
We aren't trying to produce the aspects you listed above. Those can be done in Phoenix with the more elegant solution you have.
As we look into the "super container" architecture I want to seriously persue the interceptors. However the lifecycle extensions architecture does solve a present need.
It is *optional* as in not all containers are required to support it. ECM will never support it--for that they will need Fortress at a minimum. Merlin will support it. Phoenix won't--it has a better mechanism. Third party containers that want to solve a simple extension problem will use it.
The question is where does it belong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
