> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > '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,
I feel our difference is just a matter of definition. What I mean is: "one class with attached meta info == service". "A service, handling one or many other objects == component". What do you think? Andreas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
