> > IMHO avalon interfaces are not so bad: I don't think that > creating our > > own interfaces for lifecycles will be better than using the > one we are > > currently using. They are interfaces and we can adapt lyfecycle > > management from other containers to the one from avalon. > But I thought(what I red from the lists) that for JAMES3, it > would be required to remove Avalon totally - cause it's going > to be pure POJO.
This could be the last step. I haven't seen effort in that direction by now. Avalon interfaces are REALLY simple. IMHO It would not make sense to create N new interfaces in james to replace the ones from avalon by now. I doesn't make sense also to not use interfaces to handle our own component's lifecycle. We could refactor james components to use setter injection ioc instead of context lookup ioc by wrapping the context lookup around the pojo services but IMHO the used services will remain the current ones (e.g: cornerstone/avalon interfaces). The only component I don't like from the avalon stuff is the Configuration: it is very powerful but I would prefer to have bean based configuration (We already have a similar configuration in smtp/pop3/nntp/fetchmail services). Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
