Let's invent a new concept: "No Framework"
If we don't do it here, then I will pursue it over at D-Haven.
Let's just recognize there's some rather fundamental differences of opinion here. And let us not fragment CVSes over a dozen sourceforge projects (but that's a different story ;).
Through IMing with Steve and diving a bit deeper into merlin, I can see where its coming from and where its going, and its really fundamentally different from where I want to go with things.
For example, I think model-driven architecture is a really big farce, a bad idea, a dumb term, and a pipe dream. He thinks opening up a system to try and make it completely scriptable (all "glue-ey") is even worse.
I don't see merlin becoming some components with some glue between them (call it a JMX microkernel if you want, but its just a bit of glue): it just doesn't fit the codebase at all. Through every successive merlin iteration, Steve has adjusted and finetuned a formal modal, and he's extending it into more and more parts of the problem domain, piece by piece.
This is radically different from just going like "hey, you, programmer! Here's some really useful duck tape and a big jar of glue. Go build your app.".
The vital point to realize, and the real challenge at the same time, is that the world would /really/ benefit from some reuse of components between these two approaches.
Rigidly formalizing every little bit of the avalon meta model and making it a core part of avalon-framework will make that more difficult. The more model-driven the avalon container-component contract becomes, the more difficult it becomes for a piece of duck tape to act like a container.
I do not know how to achieve the complete formal model (as in model-driven) whilst still accomodating simplicity. Indeed, being able to quite easily
public static void main( String[] args )
{
/* 10 lines of code to set up and use two components here, without
importing anything else */
}Dismissing this as an invalid usecase is just as dumb as calling model-driven architecture a big farce. If it becomes impossible to replace the container side of the container-component contract, completely, easily, with some simple bits of pure java, avalon will have failed as a framework, failed on its promise of seperation of concerns, and it will probably fail as a project because it will be surpassed by others.
Niclas wrote: > I realize that ALL software developers SHOULD be > forced to work on designing the electronics for a year or so, just to > be enlightened on how simple things could be.
I have two (relatively brilliant) electronics students here on my flat. They plainly suck as software architects. Might I suggest software developers study physics instead?
;)
-- cheers,
- Leo Simons
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/ IoC Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/ Articles & Opinions -- http://articles.leosimons.com/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." -- Alan Bennett
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
