Pete Carapetyan wrote:
> Submitted this question within <flamebait/> earlier, but it got
> ignored. It needs to be answered.
>
> Is Avalon for ANY other purpose than *Component Re-Use* or not? That
> is certainly my only interest. It is arguably what attracts most
> people to it? True or false?
Form the point of view of the internal architecture of our (OSM)
devleopment, Avalon component *resuse* is not an absolute factor. There
are many situations where I am dealing with families of components
within which I'm introducing behaviours that our outside of classic
resuable components. There are other cases - components intended to be
*reused* as standalone services - but my usage of the work standalone is
in the context of a formal component model - one in which "standalone*
allows me to formally declare dependecies - formally declare services -
in effect to formally declare how my component will successfull work
with other formally declared components.
I do want reusable component from Avalon and I think this is
fundimentally important. I also believe that the framework can provide
much more than this - but if I had to back one single objective it would
be reuse.
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]>
