Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>Freedom is not being removed. Let get that strait. Assume
>>for the purpose of this discourse that a framework is
>>released without "remove".
>>
>
>My point being that such an operation should not be taken
>without providing an alternative solution that is
>
>1) better
>2) easier to use
>
Ok, lets take the DefaultComponentManager.release() operation - the
implementation currently is the following:
public void release( final Component component )
{
}
This is the framework reference implementation of release. Yes - it is
easy to understand, yes - its easy to use. Could we come up with
something that is better? Yes - remove it and delivery something better
in the right level of abstraction. But the big point is that your email
is making assertions that are only rational if your understanding of
Avalon Framework is Avalon Framework + ECM conventions and implementation.
>
>> It is
>>simply
>>the ratraction of an abstact operation that cannot be
>>supported at the framework's level. Nothing more - nothing
>>less. I'm not promoting or
>>opposing
>>that position here - what I am doing is directly challenging
>>the the assumptions you are implying about A4 and its
>>evolution. In reality, this email is a fake parade that
>>argues for the value of something we don't have.
>>
>
>I don't get the fake parade thing at all.
>
Too much implied in beteen the lines. Positioning the containerkit as
overly complex - why - have you used it - have your tried to develop
something with it? I have - it is simple to use - took no more that a
couple of days to get something operation in place. Containerkit is
simple - what's not simple is what containerkit implies. But the iussue
here is that containkit is implying the defintion of what a component
really is - and that is much more of a concrete issue. My fake-parade
comment is specifically addressing the issue of "lets ignore whats
really happenning" - "lets imagine that what we have is perfect" - what
we have today is really great - but when we are discussing evolution and
forward looking development - we cannot - must not - ignore our
functional limitations (e.g. the amazingly complex release operation imp
described above - or the responsibilities we have when defining what a
component really is).
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
