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.
There was even a 'demo site' with fisheye on it started by Alexander Zhukov:
news://news.gmane.org:119/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the thread with [James-NG] in the subject.
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).
My biggest problem with it is that it can't really 'reload' it's content
while JAMES is running. JAMES developers said that this is an Avalon
limitation.
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
