Stephen McConnell wrote:
Farr, Aaron wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problems with the 'assimilated' approach are
- From a component author perspective the Avalon framework is the point of contact between my personal development and all this Avalon stuff.
That's the very thing that resulted in divergent and in-compatible implementation approaches. Avalon Framework alone does not cut it - its just a part of the component contract and to build against the contract you have to take into consideration more than a bunch of interfaces:
* javadoc tags * lifecycle artifacts (Configuration, Context, Parameters, ServiceManager, etc.) * delivery strategies * lifestyles
Tis is presented under the "Component Model" and related javadoc. http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/reference/component/index.html http://avalon.apache.org/avalon/runtime/3.3.0/api/index.html
However, that is not how some users are using it and we can't tell our users
what to do. Well, we can try, but they don't have to listen. We can
recommend they use Merlin (or whatever) but at this point there are plenty
of other applications which use Avalon Framework in a more standalone manner
or in a manner which is not well represented in the documents you reference.
From memory documenting other peoples bad practices is in our charter.
s/is in/is *not* in
:-)
Stephen.
--
|---------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org | |---------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
