----- Original Message ----- From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Everyone in the 'lightweight camp' seems to make a I strongly suggest you to stop using these kind of terms. > "Strict Contract" == "Huge Contract" > > And I think that is where the main mindset block is sitting. I would never had other opinion. Quoting you "It is all about Component Interoperability, at container-level, at IDE level, at search tools level, and every other conceivable application that may be interested in looking at the component." Did you miss the kitchen sink? My opinion: small steps. > So we have a 'conflict'. If we do (7), then it is a Avalon Framework We are under Avalon. I don't see any problem in obligate to use interfaces to express requirements. OTOH I think we should evolve to support constructor injection and setter injection, but thats another discussion. > Then declare your typical AF4 component > > MyComponent requires GenericStartableSpecification > MyComponent compliesWith AvalonStartableSpecification I'm not sure about your suggestion. I - personally - don't like to relies on developers to do the right thing. We can find out what a component expects by inspecting it (search for metadata, interfaces implements, constructors declared and so on) > 1. Specifications should be small. +1 > 3. That Avalon today already contain a lot of these specs, but lumped together > under the AF4 umbrella, making it an 'all-or-nothing' (just like EJB) spec. Why all or nothing? > What do you ALL think? I think you're in the right path. But I'd like to see everyone's opinions about it. cheers! hammett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
