Berin Loritsch wrote:

I like this post :o)
It is concrete and to the point.

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
That particular point isn't the issue, but how that decision process was made--without the input of others who depend on framework.

Ok. People feel bypassed in a decision process, for an item that the makers felt were marginal.



but at the same time we need something that isn't going to change unpredictably.

4.1 won't change feature-wise.
You are all free to add bug-fixes to it, and since the codebase between 4.1 and 4.2 hasn't changed either, it is currently a management issue only.


2. I think (but not sure) that it can't be very hard for a container to support it.
I dunno. Are we talking full Pico style constructor injection or more simple Avalon artifacts in the constructor? What happens when there is a no argument constructor AND a constructor that accepts arguments--and they are both public?

We are ONLY talking injection of "LifeCycle Artifacts", namely ServiceManager, Context and Configuration, which will maintain compatibility (perhaps not all construed examples from LSD, but that is not true for the JDK either) for any 4.1 component to run in a 4.2 container.
I think that would make the changes to the container fairly managable, but heck, I haven't checked all the containers, and some perhaps defer the creation of these artifacts until after the components has been created.



But that aside, a very real issue is that Avalon Framework is a product that several projects rely on.

Assuming that the 'enhancement' can be fairly easily implemented in the various containers and I admit that the process wasn't exposed enough (since no code was changed in Framework), would you be ok with that we introduce a Framework Icon in the Products column on the Home page, which links into the Life Cycle specification and Javadocs of Avalon Framework??


Is this amicable?


Cheers Niclas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to