On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The current model is based on simple POJOs. Sebastien has proposed
rewriting the configuration model to be based on interfaces with
separate implementation and factory classes. This will have a major
impact on the kernel code and all extensions. This vote is not
about what is in the model, it's is about how the model itself is
implemented.
[ ] +1 we should do this
[X ] -1 keep things as they are
-1 from me.
This is an alternative implementation of what we have with kernel and
not just a simple "model refactor" or "modularization". Many of the
changes include rolling back directions we decided to take following
the issues encountered with M1. For example, the move away from pure
POJOs and the reintroduction of AssemblyFactory, the renaming of
model objects (e.g. ComponentDefinition to Component) which will
clash with the current runtime extension model, and the way model
references are maintained.
It's unclear how these changes will impact the rest of kernel or why
they were necessary. I understand we need to have a model that more
accurately reflects SCA 1.0. We've been doing this incrementally to
date. Why can't they existing model be evolved?
If someone wants to take the model design in a radically new
direction, I'm fine with doing so but I don't think it should be done
in trunk at this point.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
