"Eric Pugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> With the rifts that opened inside the Avalon project lately and all
>> the bad blood going on between the various authors, I'm not sure that
>> using anything beyond the Avalon Interface stuff would be a wise
>> decision. I have just skimmed the various discussions but I don't like
>> the fact that there seems to be no clear idea where to head with
>> Avalon in the future. There has been even talk about "redoing the
>> interfaces" and "split up the development", so I don't feel too good
>> about Avalon currently.
>>
>I know what you mean about not being sure about ECM. I have been perusing
>some competing IoC containers like picocontainer, and some the Avalon
>containers. I am somewhat of the opinion that while ECM may not be the
>best, it does seem to work. And eventually we may want to jump to
>Fortress/Merlin/Picocontainer/name your favorite container!
I asked about this on avalon-dev a while ago and some of the avalon
people told me, that Fortress would be nice in some aspects,
e.g. Logging.
I don't like the fact that components from the AvalonComponentService
can't and don't use Logging as transparently as Turbine native
service. I'd like to get some sort of adapter that a container
provides the components with a logging facility a la
commons-logging. I don't know whether this is possible but getting one
large log with just "avalon" as facility and no class names (which
IMHO only leads to developers putting the class names into each and
every logging statement) is not desireable.
Some of the avalon people told me that fortress can do this.
>I think for anything complex, what we want to do is what you did with the
>Torque component and the spice project does, which is to split the container
>wrapper from the core code.
Yep.
>I may dig in a little on the other containers, but I have a feeling which
>ever one we pick will be the wrong one in a years time...
>So, to sum up, I am going to plow forward on converting some more of the
>core Turbine components in fulcrum. I am going to write some more unit
>tests. Try and port the best of Turbine-2 to fulcrum. And any unit tests I
>write I may try and put back into Turbine. Then, as soon as we get 2.3 out
>of the way we can evaluate which fulcrum components to either move into the
>Turbine-2 cvs or to leave in fulcrum, which becomes a repo for avalon
>components.
>Sound good?
Yep. Getting some working code to play with is the best that can happen.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!"
-- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
