Keep in mind that the proposal is referring to a minimum basic set that all containers need to supply. Anything more than that basic set is specific to that container.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 3:41 AM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Distilling common Context Attributes > > > On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 08:55, Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > > Less is more. > > > > In the list below I don't see why we need component, partition and > > application seperation - these notions are container specific. > > I disagree. Where some containers may not provide this > separation (and hence only support the "component" space), > those that do provide a separation should provide the same one. > > > I would prefer to the subset : > > > > avalon:home.dir > > avalon.work.dir > > avalon::common.classloader <-- but question on this > > avalon::name > > > > I've included the avalon:name entry because without it you > will not be > > able to resolve all of the Phoenix portability issues. > > Before accepting this as a common part of the framework, I > think a definition of what avalon:name contains (type, > contract) is neccessary, as well as a rationale different > than ("phoenix portability issue") is needed (ie like Berin > did for the other attrs). Can we start with the proposed > three and add this one later? > > > For the home and > > work values - no problem - for the "common.classloader" - > what does this > > mean - is it different from a regular classloader supplied to the > > component ? > > to me "common" implies "shared"... indicating that the > component must accept the fact that it may share its > classloader with other components. The scoping issue pete > mentions wrt to the directory setup does not apply > (classloaders themselves already cascade). Hence, a different > namespace from "component|partition|application" must be used > and common is a natural choice. > > my thoughts only, of course =) > > However, due to reasons mentioned previously, I still think > the namespace base should be "avalon". I'm not going to -1 > based on that though... > > cheers, > > Leo > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:avalon-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
