I would just suggest that the name of the container not be
Excalibur.. there is enough baggage around that as is. Also, how
would you differentiate from Spring/Nano?
I guess I am wondering from a marketing perspective "why is your
product better" (even if it's just ideas at this point!)?
Will it be the implementation based on Java 5 features?
Will it be the support for existing components?
Will it be some sort of new technique that makes setting up a
container easy/better?
Eric Pugh
On Jun 16, 2005, at 5:36 AM, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
hammet,
Thoughts?
What's the goal? Who is supposed to use this container for what?
Why would
any project choose this new container over any existing one?
Regards,
Torsten
Hi there,
Hitting the same button again - sorry! - I'd like to re-open the
discussion
about a container implementation, still based on the old
suggestion from
Leo
Sutic, but this time using Java 1.5.
Rationale:
- Java 5 has nice features that may allow us to code a container
different
from anything currently available
- An excalibur container has no relation to Fortress/Phoenix/any
other
which
translates in freedom on its implementation, design and functionality
- We don't even have to think about an avalon container, just
focus on
Inversion of control and its meaning. An avalon adapter could come
gracefully from a good design
- For those, like myself, that haven't dig into java 5, that would
be a
great opportunity :-)
Thoughts?
--
Cheers,
hammett
http://www.castleproject.org/~hammett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
