Berin Loritsch wrote:
Farr, Aaron wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To that end, we need to focus on the AMTAGS proposal and the Context
clarifications. Currently, there is a similarity in some of the component
definitions between Phoenix and Fortress, with Merlin being divergent in
these areas.
Perhaps to avoid any misunderstanding, how exactly is Merlin divergent?
The meta-info and meta-data descriptors are different for all three
containers. This includes assembly, lifestyle identification, and
configuration. Deployment structure (jar vs sar) is different between all
three containers. Support for lifecycle extensions, nested containers,
context extensions and values are different in all containers.
Berin:
I read though your reply a couple of time and totally failed to locate anything that supported you claim that Merlin is divergent. About the only concrete statement was the following - and that left me somewhat confused ...
Fortress and Phoenix share a subset of meta-info descriptors
What is the subset of meta-info that Fortress and Phoenix share? It is my impression that Fortress and Phoenix have take divergent paths (I'm inspired by your own creative application of this word). Fortress keys of a @avalon.component whereas Phoenix keys of @phoenix.component for one variant of its meta-model and @phoenix.block for what it calls legacy support for the <blockinfo> style (neither of which have anything to do with Fortress or Merlin). If we dig into the actual descriptors the differences between Fortress and Phoenix are even more distinct and container specific relative to anything in Merlin. Given that the meta-info package we are separating out from Merlin includes fully support for the legacy Phoenix model, along with support for the declaration of Fortress context assumptions, and provides complete support for the Avalon context spec. - it would be really helpful if you could clarify for me what it is that prompts you to suggest that Merlin is divergent?
Can I should assume that your statement concerning "divergence" was perhaps just a touch off the mark? Perhaps you meant to say "open", "adaptive", "encompassing", or dare I say "all-embarrassing"?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
