Leo Simons wrote:
I disagree with the notion that all avalon containers must know what a lifecycle extension is (though I agree all containers developed at avalon.apache.org should), and this would make clear that some container developers can / should / are likely to ignore the lifecycle stuff.
When you say "lifecycle extension" do you mean the notion of a lifecycle stage that is declaring a dependency, or do you mean the excalibur-lifecycle package that deals with pre-initialization and pre-disposal plugins?
If you mean a containers should not be aware of the notion of a logical lifecycle stage deployment dependency, then in an attempt to change your mindset, please read on ....
* can ignore it - stay with STV * should ignore it - live with STV forever * are likely to ignore - yes *if* we move this out of the avalon namespace, and in doing so - we go back to STV
If an Avalon container does not know what a lifecycle stage dependency is - then there is no chance for any reliable deployment across different containers unless we throw out the current tags and shift our abstraction level up one level and start over. This is not about a requirement to implement - this is about recognition that a stage is a logical abstraction in an Avalon lifecycle and that as such a stage represents a logical dependency that a container must be aware of before it consider a component as a candidate in a deployment scenario.
If on the other-hand, your thinking about excalibur-lifecycle, then please read the following post which details its relationship to subject of tags, meta, containers and deployment:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=105921226013382&w=2
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]
