That's the whole point. I'm not a big fan of reliance on external meta-data. I don't mind using it. Infact, I like it. I just don't want to be dependent on it. I believe Avalon has a need for simple container implementations. I would like for it to be usable "out of the box". Also, if there was a formal container specification, it would make it simpler to pick and choose from different container implementations and put something nice together piecemeal (like Pico).
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Avalon Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [proposal] Avalon Container Framework > > > Jonathan Hawkes wrote: > > >Any questions, comments, criticisms? > > > > Jonathan : > > I don't understand the need for additional interfaces. As far as I can see any of the Type-X semantics can be implementated within an Avalon container by leveraging meta-info. > > Stephen. > > -- > > Stephen J. McConnell > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > |------------------------------------------------| > | Magic by Merlin | > | Production by Avalon | > | | > | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | > | http://dpml.net/ | > |------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
