Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Do you want to really go to the mat with Stephen to add
that meta data definition to the Meta package?
If anyone want to go to the mat with Stephen they should really come
to grips with the difference between meta-info (an object model
specified and implemented under the Avalon Meta package) as opposed
to meta-data (an object model specified and implementation as part of
the Avalon Composition package). And if they really want to take me
out - they should have a good idea of how meta-data combined with
meta-info establishes the context for the creation of a manageable
and sustainable meta model.
Are your ready?
Why bother?
Because bothering to understand what exists, why it exists, its
strengths, weaknesses, features and benefits, is surely a prerequisite
for product evolution. It applies across the board. Without that
investment how can we assess the integrity of radical versus progressive
change?
Honestly, the "Why Bother" comment has to do with the bias I have in past
exchanges with you. You never choose to see any value in someone else's
position, so why bother to expend the energy to try to get you to do it?
If Avalon crams the "Meta" package down the throat of official standard for
Avalon components, then I will be able to support that contract in my
container. No problems. However, I don't like it, never have, and it is
too heavy a solution for a simple problem IMNSHO. So, I have said my piece,
and I will allow you to hash out what Avalon is going to do. Rest assured,
I am not going to worry about the details. Just let me know what they are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
