Darrell, Well put. Not sure whether you're in favour of mymidon or not.
On the issue of subset, I'm going to move on to A-F's Initializable interface instead of the current init() (as per previous emails of mine). - ph >On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:38, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > >>Now you just need to convince people with voting rights. ;-) >> >> --- Noel >> >> > >Ummm, I'd be one of those I guess, although I'd be extremely reluctant to use >it, since I've been off in Myrmidon (Ant2 proposal) for some time. > >I read this thread with interest, and I have a few comments. > >* I pretty much agree with Danny and Serge that the Mailet API itself >shouldn't have any direct dependencies on the Avalon Framework, if possible. > >* Any Mailet written solely against the Mailet API will function perfectly in >James, the Reference implementation of a Mailet container. > >* This doesn't mean that a particular Mailet shouldn't be able to use Avalon >Framework interfaces, in a container that supports those interfaces. eg >LogEnabled: I think that LogEnabled provides a clean, implementation neutral >way of getting a Logger from the Mailet container, but some mailets may >choose other ways. However, in using LogEnabled the Mailet author is saying: > "this mailet can be used in any container which supports both the Mailet >API and the Avalon LogEnabled contract". > >* I believe that James should provide support for a relevant subset of Avalon >contracts, maybe just LogEnabled, or any others that seem very useful. This >would be value-added behaviour of James the Mailet container, providing >additional services (beyond the Mailet API) to any hosted Mailets. > >* If a Mailet writer wants their *LogEnabled* Mailet to work in a >non-avalonized container, they would need to ensure that they provide a >default Logger themselves in the case that "enableLogging(Logger logger)" >isn't called. > >* The big question is whether the core James mailets use LogEnabled. I say >"why not?". After all, these are just mailet implementations, and not part of >the MailetAPI itself. Maybe we can provide an adapter which can be used to >run LogEnabled Mailets in non-avalonized containers, but I wouldn't be >surprised if *all* Mailet containers end up supporting LogEnabled directly. > >I guess the main point is that we can have the Mailet API completely >independent of Avalon-Framework, yet still *support* Avalon-Framework >contracts in James, the Mailet Container. This keeps the Mailet API clean, >and hopefully future-resistant, while allowing us to reuse some of the >concepts and strategies which have proven so useful in Avalon. > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
