You know, this discussion has been interesting. As Berin (and the
aforementioned article) pointed out, an interface is a very loose contract.
It may have semantic meaning attached, but that meaning cannot be natively
enforced in the Java programming language. Thus, we have conformance tests
for interfaces that require a more exacting definition. So, should a
container directly support such additional contracts?
Absolutely fundamentally no question - YES.
I think that it would be a neat idea if we had the option.
We have the option. We also have the implementation.
This would be especially nice for running non-trusted components. In addition to defining security policies under which they are executed, they could be required to pass conformance tests (if applicable) before deployment.
What do you guys think?
Ummm .... It's a no-brainer. +1
Jonathan Hawkes
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest | |------------------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
