Did you even read the rest of the message? I'm not pushing a type 3 replacement. You could continue to write components as you wish. Please see the original message and do me the courtesy of reading it. I'm not trying to spark an argument over which way is best.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ulrich Mayring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [proposal] IoC type 3.14 extension to the Avalon Framework > Jonathan Hawkes wrote: > > > > I hope that the example needs little explanation (it is a bit contrived, I admit). > > And that is a problem. If you had a real example of a working > application, you'd find that there's a lot of code in the lifecycle > methods (at least that is the case with our apps). In the type3 example > all that stuff would have to be in the constructor. > > Because of obfuscation we have moved from DIY to the Avalon framework in > the first place. And now people are trying to go back to "roll your own"? > > If anything, we'd need more framework, not less. We've written an > application framework on top of Avalon to standardize even more. The > Cocoon and Keel folks have done the same. > > Ulrich > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
