-----Mensagem original----- De: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, we could argue about the correct terms for months but the term "type" is imho misleading here. If a type exposes all features of a component why is it called a type and not component?
Its a TypeDescriptor. Something like "for class X there are these dependencies, these custom lifecycles" and so on.
Here in lies one of the fundamental problems I have with the Meta package. If there is this much discussion about it with people who are Avalon veterans, then something is seriously wrong. It is too complex, and introduces too many new concepts that we haven't bought off on.
This is a "code smell" or at least a "design smell".
That is also part of the reason I continually try to push simpler solutions like Commons Attributes or JDK 1.5 annotations. The bottom line is it should not be this hard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
