On Saturday 17 January 2004 13:10, J Aaron Farr wrote: > Definitely a Random Thought: > http://www.jadetower.org/muses/archives/000019.html > Feedback is welcome.
I enjoyed reading it, as it reflects a fair bit of my own thoughts; 1. There are MANY aspects of framework construction. 2. There could potentially be ANY number of container implementations. 3. All container variations should not be part of our ambition, just like all components should not be part of our ambition. Although I like Merlin very much, as it is in-line with my current thought process, I realize that not everyone find it as amazing as I do. As in the article, I don't know if Merlin will be capable to be "cut up" in smaller pieces that can be assembled in arbitrary constellations to suit different needs. It would be great. But I DO believe that Avalon Framework needs some form of Playground Container, where new ideas can be tested, and I DO believe that we need a collection of "high quality", "low level" Reference Components, serving both the need of functionality as well as education (easy to forget). I think we can spur innovation by separating "Playground Container" from "Production Container", and saying that the "Playground Container" will not graduate, but features may make its way into the Production Container. Reagrding the evolution fo Avalon Framework itself, and the identification that Dependency is very different from LifeCycle is a much harder nut to crack. I would like to throw in a 3rd, almost forgotten, same-level issue; Service Availability. And then of course, Meta-info about the components. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
