On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 10:41, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > On 2/1/02 6:34 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:31, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >>> Avalon is no more or less coherent than Commons. > >> > >> Really - you are saying that the parts of Avalon have no organized > >> relationship? Or that the relationships are *exactly equal* to that of > >> the organized relationships in Commons? > > > > Im saying the relationship between components is determined by the people > > who write the components. For instance in Commons we have the Digester > > that uses the BeanUtils which uses Logging. In Avalon We have the thread > > pool that uses the pool object that uses the Logger. (I don't know if > > either of these relationships is accurate but you get the picture). Some > > components have more dependencies, while some have none. > > Another approach : > > Is there a framework in avalon, and components to work within that > framework?
There is a framework. Some components choose to use it and some don't. Some components work in the framework, a subset of the framework or not in framework at all. Those that tend to tie directly to the framework are the implementations of Containers while other components are far less likely to make tie. -- Cheers, Pete *------------------------------------------------------* | Hlade's Law: If you have a difficult task, give it | | to a lazy person -- they will find an easier | | way to do it. | *------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
