Marcus wrote;
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:09:16AM -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
The single container is something we once believed in--or at least said we would work toward. Now it is only a dream.
I still believe in the vision of us having a single container, and in reality I think most of us really only work on one container anyway - it's just that they're all not the same container. :)
For each person the "perfect choice" is different than other people's "perfect choice", because the requirements are different. But the requirements for a particular developer does not change very rapidly, therefor you are easily under the perception that a "single container will be perfect" illusion. I for instance, wants an ultra-lightweight J2ME container for embedded applications, but ALSO want a "Super Phoenix", possibly a variant of the Merlin works as well (have not studied Fortress so can't say). I therefor no longer believe in "one size fits all".
The NanoKernel approach (smaller than MicroKernel) would let us add in exactly what we needed. Features could be added in like components/modules. The default set would be your ultra-lightwieght container. Your super-phoenix would be made possible as well. In fact new features we haven't thought of yet could all be made part of the container without forcing us all to agree to one set of requirements.
That is my vision of the "one" container. It isn't one-size-fits-all in the clothing sense of the term (i.e. one predefined hat for all heads).
--
"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]
