> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@;yahoo.com] > > Peter, > > >[ uber container ] > > > >Actually we do know enough now - > > > Actually I really think we do not need to rush to towards an > uber-container. Why? > > 1) We have plenty of good ones all compatible with our primary art: > Avalon-Framework's lifecycle interfaces (Ioc). > 2) XP teaches us not to do something in terms of design until > it is needed. > 3) If we go for the uber-container we'd have to defend if it emerged > that there was a design mistake. > > Let such a container emerge. Let several. Play this game over a few > years from now, not months. That's not to say don't develop > containers, > don't go down the road of trying to unify things now. Evolution / > Emergence....?
Let's take the cue from J2EE. Sun developed the SPECIFICATIONS. The rules, regulations, and contracts of a compliant container. That should be the goal and focus of the Avalon component framework. Not to have a supercontainer to end all containers. Such a beast would not work well in embedded environments anyways. There is a reason for separate containers. The thing is that we need to make it so that any component will work reasonably in any of the Containers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
