On Saturday 07 August 2004 14:36, Paul Hammant wrote: > >1. Moving any 'functional' code into POJOs, and have an Avalon wrapper to > >maintain Avalon compatibility. > > Err, introducing abstract parent classes to do the guts of the > component's work. Keeping the existing block class to adapt to Avalon > (this in itself keeps backwards compatability). Then introducing a > new/alternative CDI based entry point for the same abstract 'guts' class.
Ok, I didn't review it that closely, just noticed that there was a separation. End of the day, the effect is the same :o) > >Personally, I have no strong opinion at this point in time, and would like > > the folks to speak up. Preferably also the Excalibur camp... > > You are quite correct. If we roll this foward some months in time, we > are likely to effect some of the same changes in Exclaibur. For now > though, this excercise targets only the parts of Cornerstone that > FtpServer and James use. Ok. I have learnt around here that any changes in common code risk 'clipping your wings', so better anchor it with people involved. IMHO, if these are considered "Go" changes, then Avalon takes on becoming more of a unifying IoC ground than previously, and one should expect more multi-capable conversions, and perhaps even new horizontal components entering Cornerstone from Pico & Spring camps. Perhaps we are touching on the Future of Avalon, right here... I am not sure. Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.bali.ac / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
