Carsten Ziegeler dijo: > Sylvain Wallez wrote: >> >> You have to consider two very different things: >> - the Avalon framework APIs (LogEnabled, Serviceable, >> Configurable, etc.) >> - the container that implements the framework behaviour >> >> Although the container implementation may change, there's a >> strong commitment to the framework APIs as this is what we've >> used and invested in for many years. >> >> So even if a new container comes with new features (e.g. IOC >> type 2/3), it will also have to implement the Avalon >> framework behaviour. We cannot trash years of use of this API >> overnight. >> > I don't want to freak out again but if you look at the discussions > about the block implementations, there were a lot of discussions > to also remove the framework api from the block system. So if you > want to use the benefit of blocks, you can't use the avalon > framework api for your components. And I still think this is bad. > > Anyways, if for example we would move to Fortress (without using > the meta-info stuff and keeping our current configuration files > which is possible!) we could add own lifecycle interfaces over > time and provide a smooth migration path to whatever comes with > blocks.
Thanks Carsten, this exactly what I remember. It moves me to write the RT. This seems to be still not cleared. BTW, sorry for start the same again. ;) I think it is time to make some decisions. The development stall if we don't decide how to go and the clock is ticking. I wanted to include in the RT a question about Excalibur, as Gianugo said, Excalibur is a TLP now and ask if is worth to collaborate there while we (Cocoon) are switching out of it. This are the things that disturb me now. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
