Niclas, You're forcing me into making cookie cutter statements that don't tell the whole story or how indecisive I am. On several questions I was undecided but because of a slight (and by slight I mean by the weight of a single strand of hair) lean of the balance towards one option I voted. Please consider the detailed explanations in my first email without the [POLL] in it. Do so if you truly consider what I have to say. But I did want to entertain your wishes and have replied according to your poll and so without further commentary here are the results:
> Components are more than code. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Components should come in "a box", dropped in place and used without even > need > to look at it. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Simplicity for Component User more important than simplicity for Container > Developer. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Simplicity for Component Author more important than simplicity for > Container > Developer. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Simplicity for Component User more important than simplicity for Component > Author. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Without a large Component Repository, COP is pretty meaningless. > [ ] Correct > [X] Incorrect > COP is not the same as Java classes defined over an API. I.e. just because > you > can instantiate it, doesn't mean it is a Component. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Avalon is about a domain-neutral server framework.[1][2] > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Components should be runtime replacable. A true server doesn't need > restart. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect > Avalon-compliant Components could be made to work in non-Avalon-compliant > containers, effectively running as POJOs, by the Component Author. > [X] Correct > [ ] Incorrect I'm curious now to see you're results. Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
