Re: cvs commit: jakarta-avalon-excalibur/container/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/container/lifecycleAbstractLifecycleExtensionManager.java LifecycleExtensionManager.java

[Paul Hammant]

Peter, Stephen,

I think that the AbstractLifecycleExtensionManager and
LifecycleExtensionManager classes should stay with Fortress. They are
both part of the Fortress implementation of lifecycle extensions. If
you take a look at the Merlin implemetation approach is is quite
different. Classes within the container/lifecycle package are intended
to be only those interfaces and abstract implemetations that are
required for extension interoperability.

They are a reasonable default implementation. Much like DefaultComponentManager is a reasonable default implementation of ComponentManager.

Should not we split avalon-framework.jar into avalon-framework.api.jar and avalon-framework-refimpl.jar ?

If there is a case for having simple defaults for all (Peter), and that those defaults may be ignored by one or all of our excellent containers (Stephen) and that no client side A-F coder should cast to a default, then jar separation could be a good thing that pleases all. Actually we should make three jars if we include the current one.

Regards,

- Paul



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>