Hi Jeremy, As part of this discussion and vote could we also summarize the technical reasons for each of us to be going one way or the other. Since this is a major decision point it would be good for everybody to know why we as a community are taking a specific direction and helps us to get back to these design decisions in the future whenever in doubt. I am really keen on understanding each of our technical perspectives in this regard and not necessary in the context of weighing opinions for this vote.
Here is my attempt at this... [X] +1 we should do this [ ] -1 keep things as they are My Reasons : (from whatever little I have been thro) - I see that the interfaces will help us align better with the assembly model stated in the specs. What is publicly available out of the model is just about what is published in the interfaces and that is just about what the core (or extensions) should be using. Otherwise we might encapsulate into the model all that our core implementation would ideally need. Also basing the model on interfaces us flexibility in that while the model's implementation undergoes change the core that uses it continues unaffected. Thats one that I see immd. from whatever I am working currently. Thanks - Venkat On 3/20/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 My opinion. -- Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
