Niclas Hedhman wrote:I think his point is that AF4 is both a component API as well as a Container API/Toolkit, and hence can not evolve at all.
My point is that historically AF4 (and prior) has always been just the framework. I have no problems with there being more to it than just framework--but there has been nothing I can see that has made it completely obvious that there is more.
Ok. I am trying to get to your main point...
It seems that there is a mis-understanding about AF4 and Avalon at large.
Prior to moving on to Avalon 5, there is Avalon Framework 4.x. which is contained (codebase wise) in avalon-framework-api-4.2.0.jar and avalon-framework-impl.4.2.0.jar
There is nothing in Avalon Framework(!) 4.2 stipulating that Avalon Meta 2.0 has to be supported.
So, the only thing that we could continue to argue, is whether the Specification Declaration, that AF4.2 compatible containers MUST honor constructor injection of LifeCycle artifacts, is a reasonable evolution of the Avalon Framework or not.
I personally think that the change required in the container to evolve with this 'enhancement' is reasonable, and wouldn't raise much controversy, hence didn't react much when Stephen made the change.
IOW, Everything up to Avalon 4.2 is just framework, and Avalon 4.3/5/X on includes framework, meta, and anything else I don't know about.
That is because there is no such thing as Avalon 4.2. There is an Avalon Framework 4.2, which doesn't require Avalon Meta or anything else (well it requires Avalon Logkit, but that will change later).
Is this a fair assessment of your concerns? And reasonable explaination that most of this flamefest is a misunderstanding?
I refrain from making any remarks on your mudslinging.
Cheers Niclas
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
