At 07:59 23/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>Alex Fernández wrote:
>>
>> Jon Stevens wrote:
>>
>> > I can't wait to see what it will be like to configure all these Commons
>> > components and how many .xml files I will have to edit or how much
>> > configuration code I will have to write to make it work...
>>
>> You're right, of course. If instead of integrating a whole framework we
>> have to configure 100 components so the pool has trace, XML, task
>> scheduling, web-admin and whatever capabilities, it isn't what we need.
>>
>> In fact, if the component configuration cannot be integrated in our
>> global configuration scheme, it will not do.
>>
>> So, in a word, we don't need components that integrate with each other;
>> we need components that need no integration at all. Perhaps we would be
>> better off with a framework; but that's not what we think.
>
>My better judgement tells me to dare not suggest how getting a common
>configuration pattern for the components might be realized, as I am sure
>it will bring howls of derision and scorn regarding central control and
>big brother.
>
>However, this is a really good point and a discussion we should have in
>Commons-land. Please come and join if interested.
yes and after that you really should standardize on logging. Oh and then
standardize on lifecycle because thats important too. Wait you have Avalon
! How long do you think before my final prediction bears true? If already
you are talking about "standardisation" when that was explicitly one of the
non-goals then ...
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
