Ok, that was just long to use inline comments so...

I agree with in principle. I think your definitions, basics and concerns
are on point. I also think I agree with the rest of it but it will take
a few more reads to make sure.

With that said here are a few of my thoughts along the same line as
yours.

1) I agree completely that a container should be no more than a shell
that provides "container" services using components. The trick here is
being able to define the proper interfaces for those container
components as well as for the normal framework interfaces. This might be
easier said than done, but would allow for a completely customizable
container. One issue we will run into with this approach is that there
will still be things that are harder to "componentize" than to just
layer into the container. If enough of these exist and they are
implemented differently enough in each container/component we are back
to the same problem. This is more of a dynamic container.

2) As to the proposed process in general I agree. One thing to consider
is a time limit for discussion. Now before someone attacks me on this,
I'm not talking about cutting people off after 10 minutes or something.
What I mean is some upper limit that is reasonable to facilitate useful
discussion. Without one someone could potentially stall the decision
process by continually asking useless questions. Obviously is there is
still constructive discussion continuing the time limit could be
extended.

3) Also for the "Issue -> Proposal -> Discussion -> Decision" process a
different format might be considered other than the mailing lists. Maybe
have a section on the website for this process. That way the
proposals/decisions can be accessible at a later date without having to
search the mailing list archives. Not to mention it would help
organization by not having to look for ever changing subject lines.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to