Paul Hammant wrote: > 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?
Either way the effect is the same. Should I have the ability to change a lifecycle interface without it being concidered backwards incompatible. > >> 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]> > > . > -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
