On Tuesday 09 March 2004 16:42, Andreas Oberhack wrote: > 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.
Well, yes, but that will be part of such an avenue... > > '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. I strongly disagree. How do you identify a class, how do you version it, how do get its dependencies, how do you get the docs and javadocs, how do you put in I18N, how about other resources and so on and so on... The strong packaging contract can always satisfy (if done correctly) the 'loose, laying around got in place 'somehow'' concept. But not the other way around. And why do both? Niclas -- +---------//-------------------+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +------//----------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
