> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 March 2004 13:16, Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > > > 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.
Hm - could we perhaps start with some definitions first? "component", "service", "plug-in", "extension", "facilities" etc. so that we know what to "tighten"? And by doing this it should be possible to define a high level architecture. > 'class==component', > > such granularity is too fine and is like Integrated Circuits equals > > transistor. > I think, we will need both: components to "implement" a functionality and services, which "assemble" those components. Those service could be just a class - or a "component" in your terms. All the best Andreas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
