> -----Original Message----- > From: Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:04 AM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: More "academic" ideas [Was: [VOTE] New sandbox project] > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Since the Avalon 4 spec clearly states the order in which > > the lifecycle stages are performed, it makes no sense to > > allow the user to change the order for an A4 component. > > > > I'm a fan of: > > > > + order of additions of aspects doesn't matter > > > > + all aspects are optional and independent > > > > + it is hard to get a damaged configuration > > > > + it is obvious what effects an addition has > > Sure. But this is not another "one man show" so we have to reach a common > opnion.
The reason I thought about "order matters" was to make it easier to custom lifecyles to be added (ie- lifecycle extensions). Currently lifecycle or stage extensions usually end up being run after something like "initialize()" but that was never clarified in the exalibur-lifecycle package. I agree that a consistent and reliable lifecycle execution order is important, but it would be nice for "advanced" users to tweak that if they wanted to. Perhaps there could be an aspect that managed the lifecycle "chain-of-command" and it would be in this aspect users could manage custom lifecycles. This isn't a matter so important to me that I'm going to hold up any existing work. I just wanted to throw the thought out there to be considered. J. Aaron Farr SONY ELECTRONICS DDP-CIM (724) 696-7653 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
