On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:18, Paul Hammant wrote: > Darrell, > > Well put. Not sure whether you're in favour of mymidon or not.
Being an active developer on Myrmidon, I should hope so. Or maybe I'm just spending my time inserting secret trojans, to sabotage it from within... ;-) -- ciao, Daz > > 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]>
