I agree, I'd say go back to the interfaces approach for the lifecycles. We can still toss around the idea of using attributes for dependencies and other information but for lifecycle interfaces are the way to go.
-----Original Message----- From: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:20 PM To: 'Avalon Developers List' Subject: RE: ROLE & Lifecycles in C# > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [AvalonStart] > public void comenzar() throws Exception {} > > Or instead of Configurable.configure(), a developer can > declare it like > this: > > [AvalonConfigure] > public void configuracion( Configuration config ) throws > ConfigurationException {} I don't like this. It makes the contract much more loose and the method names turn into a mess. Right now, if I see a method named "configure" then I know where it fits in. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but all this new-fangled attributes & reflection stuff seems a bit overflexible. Like C++, make things flexible but not mutable - I think this is on the mutable side. /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
