Niclas Hedhman wrote:

On Friday 05 March 2004 05:17, Berin Loritsch wrote:

This is the first step of simplification.  Tell me if I am wrong if that
does not simplify the tool requirements.

if "that" == "trimming fat" then Agree

You agree then.


In the corner of meta-data/meta-info/ meta-whatever-you-want-to-call-it

I have the feeling that this is already to far away a concern at this point to talk about implementation features, when Vision, Mission and Purpose is not solidly established.

I was merely using this as an example of a type of trimming the fat to get rid of some of the utility libraries where a better alternative already exists. The memory footprint and dependency footprint should be kept as small as possible, but that is my oppinion.

Sure you can define the set of annotations for
Avalon 5 and make that part of the framework.  I would really prefer it if
you did.  You still have a well defined set of contracts, but you also have
some room to expand to support different tools.

I read in this "Framework" as a variant of "AF4", which IMHO is an utterly incomplete Component Contract (proof? >=4 incompatible containers).
If Avalon is not stepping up the ambition to be Component Oriented, and keep being "Framework Oriented", then I think we don't have a Purpose, definately not a Vision.

I hear your concerns. Now, the biggest thing that is an obstacle to compatibility has to do with configuration at this point. I lump context entry mapping, configuration specification, and parameters in together under the configuration front.

If all the containers were able to agree on one configuration file format, and
one way to specify where that configuration file lives, then we have a game
plan.  Oh, and BTW, I want to have the option to embed my configuration file
inside a JAR so users can't tweek it and mess things up--that is very important
for Swing based applications that GUIApp supports.


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to