It appears that both Stephen and I have opposing views on this particular point, so the best solution is to get some consensus. We will go with the solution that the Avalon team chooses.
The question comes from the @avalon.extension and @avalon.stage tags. They were introduced to allow Merlin to use meta-info to declare a dependency on the lifecycle extensions. Below is the proposal and objection:
Proposal:
Move these two tags to a neutral namespace like @lifecycle.* so that their use can be fine tuned without affecting the rest of the Avalon Meta Tags proposal. I beleive that putting them in a separate namespace helps enforce the idea that they are not essential to pure Avalon components, and their use should be done by people who understand the implication.
Objection:
They may not be core, but it is essential that a container recognize that the extension is required. Merlin has been using them for a while and Merlin users have not had a problem with them. (I am probably missing something here, but you can find the full set of objections in the "[Proposal] AMTAGS pt. 3 (Stage and Extension)" thread.)
Please be certain that whatever namespace we choose, it does not mean that we have to come up with a "container extension" plan at this time. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
[VOTE]
Place the extension tags (.extension and .stage) in the @lifecycle namespace.
[ ] +1 I like the proposal [ ] -1 I am fine with them in the @avalon namespace [ ] 0 I don't really care (I'll go with the majority)
+1 from me.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
