My Position, Clarified ----------------------
I'm perfectly fine with updating documentation concerning our containers that explain that they don't parse nor do anything with ROLE fields, that ROLE fields are not part of the 'official' Avalon-Framework contract, etc etc.
Great - seems to me that your totally in sync. and consistent with the views expressed in the other posts on this subject. Let me just clarify one point. I presume that you are also OK with the elimination of the ROLE pattern within the framework docs?
My Message, Clarified ---------------------
digressing a little...
For anyone wondering whether I'm mad or agitated; don't worry. I just come on strong to set something straight ASAP :D. But I've seen avalon suffer from these kind of "change for the sake of change" things before (we did silly things like slap @deprecated on Component a few times to often :D).
Eliminating the Component interface changed Avalon from being a closed solution to a solution open to the rest of the world. Mixing in meta-info into a service interface is just plain *bad*. ROLE is a simply the last vestige of practices that mix meta-info with the separate concern of the service computational interface.
Cheers, Steve.
--
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest | |------------------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
