WHY PUT IT IN FRAMEWORK?
------------------------
Because DefaultConfiguration, which is the (I believe) by far most
commonly used example of a mutable configuration object, is in
framework. Putting the interface in Excalibur would mean that the class that is the prime example of an implementation of it would not implement the interface. This makes no sense.
Good point.
I have no problem putting it in avalon-framework-impl instead of -api, though.
But I'm not OK with this. Mixing together an interface and the implementation means that any implementation of that interface would need to drag in all of those XML dependencies implied by the implementation.
However, putting this into something like avalon-framework-spi would seem to me to make a lot more sense. What would make this a slam dunk question for me would be an alternative implementation that used the interface (Alex - any thoughts on the viability of backing this interface with Eve?).
Stephen.
--
|------------------------------------------------| | 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]
