> Stepanossov, Kirill wrote: > > Committers, if this accepted, could you still leave > different "toolkits" for > > building customized containers available ? > > Why does everybody here think that COP and inheritance don't mix? Who > said that?
Well... from user's point of view the best 'framework' would be blackbox framework. Meaning a user would prefer to see a "subsystem" through a number of interfaces without mandatory understanding functionality of underlying classes. In this case the "extension" of blackbox framework would be composition and implementaion of framework interfaces. Inheritance is a way to go when you have a whitebox framework and must understand internals of framework classes to extend them. > > Either they may offer too much > > or too little. Personally, would prefer to have several > "toolkits" for > > building the majority of possible containers + a few > containers as examples > > of constructing containers from those "toolkits"... > > The history of this project showed pretty evidently how COP-patterns > applied to community building creates fragmentation and isolation and > friction. Toolkits might be technically easier to use to achieve user > goals but are bad for the evolution of a coherent and focused > development community. > > Which one do you prefer: a technical solution that works now > but might > leave you alone in the future because the maintainer decided to do > something else, of a technical solution that imposes some work on you > but will be maintained for that point on by an active community? I have an impression that a lot of recent "shaking" in Avalon could be caused by underestimation of what Avalon means for a lot of users. The real value of Avalon is not an implementation of end-user product such as any kind of container. No. Every container you, guys, write will die sooner or later - when you say that Phoenix has been rewritten several times it means you wrote several completely different containers but named them the same. And it is a way it is going to be. The value of Avalon is a set of design solutions which emerge from one iteration and decided by Avalon community to be worth to move to the next container. The first step Avalon went through was designing of lifecycle interfaces and their extensions, what is basically over and pretty much stabilized. The second step is identifying of common design solutions of any container hosting components with lifecycle interfaces. The way to document those common design solution I called here "toolkits". Ideally, it would be several sets of packages with interfaces but not implementation. Then, any user would "bet his ass on Avalon" as volatility will be minimized. Unfortunately, this second step encounter a lot of issues. The most important one is that some most active Avalon developers do not realize what is the real value of Avalon. They seems to use a certain container for implementation of other real word products and therefore reluctant to move forward. As a result of it many good new things are being vetoed as incompatible with existing containers and/or branches appear. I still remember as Avalon 5 proposal was "thrown away" ... Please, guy, realize that the primary goal of Avalon may be other than developing a container for your own project... we, users, are watching and waiting results which WE can use.... :) Kirill > It's your ass you're betting on Avalon, do you have the energy to > maintain a one-man-show toolkit if the original showman leaves or is > kicked out? > > Wouldn't you be more confortable on a solution maintained by several > different individuals? wouldn't it be harder to see the development > effort disappear? > > It's yous ass, dude, think about it. > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
