+1 to LS points. And... -----Mensagem original----- De: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de mar�o de 2004 07:26
> > 4. How do I feel about Avalon as an umbrella project vs. a single > > product? > > Somewhere in the middle. I've been a fan of a Java-like Micro / Standard > / > Enterprise division of the "single product". I don't know where that > places > me on the spectrum. I don't mind seeing Avalon as an umbrella for 'n' containers since components works in any container. And the container developer should not be obligate to use Composition/Activation/KitchenSink... only Avalon *Framework* and follow the container spec. > We can't go on with a multitude of separate codebases, though. Promoting > code re-use and evangelizing about how good Avalon is for that doesn't > sound very good when we fail completely ourselves... "Do what I say, not what I do" has been our lema here. We said in every corner SoC is good, things can be plugged, implementation can be changed but... > > 5. Should there be a formal framework specification? > Yes, a short one. > The framework spec should consist of... Avalon/Framework. I though I was alone in this point. +1 -- hammett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
