Sylvain Wallez wrote: > And I don't think we should be using it. As said in my previous post, > Avalon has always used interfaces to specify the lifecycle. Moving this > information in the configuration brings the responsibility of defining > the lifestyle to configuration writers that up to now never had to care > about it. Also, most of them don't understand all the details or > implications of these settings. > > That's the exact reason that led us to support automatic preloading with > maker interfaces. > > Other containers such as Spring chose another way by requiring > everything to be specified in the configuration file (autowiring not the > default and its use is not really encouraged [1]). These containers > bring a lot of interesting features which is why we integrate them in > Cocoon, but require configuration writers to know a lot more about the > details of components. > > Considering that many or our users aren't J2EE developers, my opinion is > that by default, system-level Cocoon components should be as simple to > configure as possible, i.e. people should only have to care about > settings, but not lifecycle or wiring. > If the developer would configure the component correctly in a roles file the user would not have to care about it and everything would work fine without using marker interfaces. Anyway, we have both mechanisms and that's great :)
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
