On 3/25/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip] Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > >> For example, the "variant implementation of the assembly model" has a >> number of changes that coupled with what you describe above will >> basically require a re-write of kernel. > > I have not committed yet this variant implementation of the assembly > model as I just started to experiment with it yesterday. What I have > in the sandbox at the moment is a set of interfaces defining an > assembly model API, and a default implementation of these interfaces. > The variant implementation that I'm talking about is a prototype of a > different implementation of (a subset of) the same model interfaces, > backed by Spring bean definitions. This will help illustrate how clean > interfaces allow for alternate implementations of one or more modules, > and facilitate the integration with a particular runtime environment > (Spring in this case). I've just spent a few hours on this prototype > so it's not really baked yet, but I'll commit what I have soon so that > people can take a look if they are interested. > I just committed a few classes in sca/modules/bean and bean-test under revision r522186 to show what I meant by a variant implementation of the assembly model.
It looks to me like this code you've been doing in the sandbox now has enough to illustrate a lot of the concepts that have been suggested for a more modular kernel. How about we now talk about what you've done and about how further development of these ideas could happen in trunk? It sounds like everyone now agrees we need a more modular kernel, is everyone willing to start doing this in trunk instead of this sandbox? ...ant
