-----Mensagem original----- De: Peter Courcoux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It appears to me that the A4 framework implies a series of individual > contracts Configuration, Contextualisation, Servicable etc. AND an order > of execution. Yup, although its sometimes implict. I think I disagree with LS thoughs in sense of we are delivering an Avalon container, so - damn its Avalon - the container should know the steps of execution that he must obey, and guarantee its order. It must pass on the future tck. Other strategies like Pico or Spring could be plugged into one of these execution steps - the avalon ones - not requiring a different handler, just different aspects/concerns implementations. The current situation of Aspects proposal is more like a generic component container where Avalon is just one of the possibilities. I think being a bit more restrictive wouldn't kill us :-) but I might be wrong! About turning some phase on/off - at first this was my intention in castle, but in a second though I don't think its good. The user turning off a configuration phase for instance can guarantee that it won't affect his components, but can't say anything about 3th parties components being used. So, if the kernel don't have a concern/aspect specified for a particular phase it should use a default one. just my 2 cents as usual. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
