BTW the break up of components into an SPI and an IMPL project is actually promoting much more reuse. Even when a single class or interface is in the project this makes reuse possible - others may argue that it is pathetic to have one class in a jar. I say this is the granularity you need at times to enable component reuse.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:04 PM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: [Avalon Meta] [short RT] Attributes/Object model > > Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO) wrote: > > > -----Mensagem original----- > > De: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >>Sorry, I think you missed the mark. > >>A component is in my world packaged, ready for use, without source, > > > > without > > > >>manual fiddling with it, and going into any container today and for the > > > > next > > > >>10 years. Your suggestion of "collection and storage being container > >>specific" doesn't cut it. > > > > > > Sorry, but this is not happening now outside Merlin. > > Your right! Avalon is the first community to address the problem > completely in a way that will actually enabled component reuse. > > > > Meta is scattered over > > different places in different containers, and things should work. > > If you aiming for re-use you *absolutely* need a standard mechanisms for > persisting meta-info and a standard way of packaging meta-info with the > components and services your publishing. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
