Peter Donald wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:49, Stephen McConnell wrote:
* that the package be migrated from the avalon-sandbox CVS to the avalon CVS as a separate project along-side the avalon framework
-1 as it does not belong at same level as framework.
we have discussed moving materials which do not belong at the same level as avalon-framework into the avalon CVS module before. Can you motivate why you think that is not a good idea?
* 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.
Taking your -1 as a veto rather than an opinion, you should provide a viable alternative for it to be valid, which AFAIK you haven't done. Could you?
Also, could you please provide more specific information about why the approach in the lifecycle package fails, perhaps with a code example?
I would also like to point out that IMHO you're "throwing a veto" rather lightly. I think it makes the discussion more productive if you take some more effort to back a -1 before issueing it. We've pretty much all come to the conclusion that vetoes should be a last resort, not a first one. Could you either explain why you disagree with that, or start following that guideline?
cheers!
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
