Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Handlers should know nothing about Avalon. Let's please get
that code out of there, and stop putting more in.
Are you vetoing the whole JAMES-494 or simply limiting JAMES-494 to
currently top level components we have in assembly.xml ?
Just the handlers. We will deal with additional pojofication in due course,
but the ones in assembly.xml *are* the bridge between us and Avalon. I just
don't want to push that API any deeper.
You know that Avalon currenlty flow through the veins of James, and not
only in top level components.
Before you cast more vetoes I would like to know how you will handle
Avalon removal in the core. Feel free to run a search for
"ContainerUtil" inside james and make some thought ;-)
Imho the Bernd commit about setters was not a solution to this problem
but is neither a step back about avalon dependency: in fact I think it
could be the first step. In the end we will have to decide how to manage
our "managed components" (mailets, commandhandlers, servicehandlers,
much more).
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
