On Tuesday 18 November 2003 23:14, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > Not having an opinion about his proposal at large (yet), your counter
> > argument is a bit bleak. Ever heard of methods ;o) ?
> >
> > public class Abc
> > {
> > public Abc( Configuration conf, ServiceManager man )
> > throws Exception
> > {
> > configure( conf );
> > service( man );
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Would that be so much different from what you are doing now?
>
> Of course it would. I cannot control the order in which the lifecycle
> stages are called, for example, or even their names.
Your statement is a bit ambigious, let me illustrate...
?? Since when can you control the lifecycle ??
I must have missed that feature/bug ;o)
Or are you saying that "pure Avalon 4", you can't control it, as you could
above? Ok, I buy this argument, hands down, and that's why this discussion is
already getting tweaked in the wrong direction.
> > AND, you don't have to use what he is suggesting, right?? If you like the
> > strict cycle (like I do, still), stick with it... But if we get access to
> > more components, i.e. components written in more neutral ways, I am +1
> > for that.
>
> Curious: what does "more neutral" mean in this context?
Let's say that Peter Royal, Leo Simons and 400 other developers thinks
PicoContainer is a better way to develop components. 400 Type2 component
developers think their way is better, and 400 Type 1 ....
All go about developing their stuff... Resulting in, for the sake of
neutrality, 400 components of each type.
Wouldn't even you be interested in using all teh 1200 components in your
Merlin container, mix-and-match whatever is available and fulfilling your
needs (function, performance, quality, whatever), or would you refuse and
stick only with the Type 1???
Well, for me it is a dirt-easy choice...
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
