Berin,
> Concidering the fact that most Avalon systems automatically determine
> the lifecycles
> of the components, I am wondering if we should strive to maintain 100%
> backwards
> compatibility for lifecycle interfaces. The issue is brought to light
> due to the
> LogEnabled interface.
>
>
>
> Should it be concidered backwards compatible for a *Component* to
> change it's lifecycle
> interfaces?
Err sorry to be pedandtic, but do you mean ...
Should it be a goal for Components to maintain backwards
compatibility of their lifecycle interfaces?
OR
Is the changing of lifecycle interfaces considered to be backwards
compatible?
> This does not apply to regular classes and containers. This is only
> for Components,
And only, mostly to Excalibur I guess.
Regards,
- Paul H
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
