At 01:40 AM 6/21/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Yep, Avalon composed Blocks. Blocks were the software equivalent of lego
>bricks. Where polymorphic objects.
>
>Blocks had version, metadata dependencies, they were thread-safe, they
>were big.
>
>I remember a pretty heated discussion with Peter about the size of
>blocks. That time I even managed to change his mind ;-)
And the real-world changed it back. A Block is just a component with
metainfo associated with it - much like cocoons components.
Gosh, things would be easier if you didn't deprecate the concept of
>'block' and wanted to use the same name for two different things.
According to your own analysis there is no distinction except for metadata.
> block -> an avalon-lifecycle-aware polymorphic object, versionned,
>fully reentrant, sharable, not directly referentiable
Thats not entirely accurate. There is no constraint that a block be
reentrant or sharable nor has there ever been. It is left up to developer
and assembler to decide these things.
> component -> an avalon-lifecycle-aware polymorphic object, directly
>referentiable
Leo (A Cocoon developer) saids a killer feature would be to change cocoon
to not be directly referentiable.
Given the above points do you still think there is a non-academic
distinction between Components and Blocks?
Cheers,
Peter Donald
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind,
and proving that there is no need to do so - almost
everyone gets busy on the proof."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
