On Tuesday 09 March 2004 13:16, Stephen McConnell wrote: > My thoughts for the day.
<snip content="interesting read" /> But I would like to highlight that there is an alternate way to go about these concerns; The current approach is a lot about converging the existing container implementations and shoe-horn in the 'behaviour' of Fortress and ECM into Merlin. One could ignore this for a moment, and accept that the containers are here now, and will not disappear in the near-future, and instead of concentrating on a single container, we start to tighten up the "Component Contracts" instead. We all know that there are endless holes in the contracts and semantics, which have led to the diverged containers. But I guess that the 'Flexibility Syndrome Camp' is quick to defend the loose contracts as a "feature". If so, I would like to buy these individuals a one-way ticket to Pico, since Avalon is not about (IMSO) 'class==component', such granularity is too fine and is like Integrated Circuits equals transistor. As we tighten the contracts, we have the choice to implement these in the existing containers, on the basis of OSS. Someone has the itch, they fix it, otherwise it remains unresolved. I also strongly recommend that the contract discussion is done without peeking into the container solutions that exists. I have a whole lot of issues at this end, I would like to "tighten", such as; Component Type Specification Component Instance Identification Specification Component Dependency Specification Component Packaging Specification Component Requirements Extension Specification I am sure this will grow ... Cheers Niclas -- +---------//-------------------+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +------//----------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
