> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:54 PM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: ROLE & Lifecycles in C#
>
> Yauheny Mikulski wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >
> > I agree and suggest the following.
> > We can implement both variants.
> > Let people decide what way they should go.
> >
> > Personally I got accustomed to the interface model
> > cause I came to .NET from Java but others ...
> >
> > I believe delegate and attribute model is very important as well and
we
> shouldn't forget it.
> > There are pros and cons of every of them.
> > and I think we might have a long discussion.
>
> Let's not make it too long ;P
>
> The interface model will work just fine--esp. for interfaces where
> there is something to pass in.
>
> The attribute model would be best for the meta info, and I believe we
> have already identified a fairly rich set of tags we can include.
>
> We might reduce the number of interfaces that we have though. For
> example, we could merge Startable and Initializable to just have
> Initializable and Disposable. I.e. we should simplify to the easiest
> thing.
What is a list of interfaces (and methods) you think should be used?
While were on this topic, we should also take a look at renaming certain
items to not overlap with .NET defined interfaces and methods. (such as
Disposable or Dispose() methods).
>
> I'm running out of time for today, so I might be able to get that
stuff
> back in to CVS tomorrow. Yauheny, I believe you can do those changes.
>
> >
> > In regards to attribute model:
> >
> > I don't like untyped manipulations with names like that:
> > AvalonLifecycle("configurable")
> > The mistake will appear at run-time only.
> > That's very bad.
> >
> > I think Berin's example to me was perfect:[AvalonInitialize]
> > public void setUp()
> > {}
> >
> > [AvalonStart]
> > public void comenzar()
> > {}
> >
> > Of course, we don't still avoid the problem of run-time exceptions
due
> to using delegates but this variant seems to be more correct.
>
> That is the only type of exception that .NET has.
>
> Anyway, with delegates, they would be used inside the container so
they
> may not have to be defined in the framework.
Yes.
>
> --
>
> "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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
