Torsten Curdt wrote:
They would no longer be the "avalon interfaces" ..or is the ECM++ still avalon?
What was the reason again to move exchange the abstraction layer? ...not talking about the implementation.
Sorry, guys this discussion getting a bit absurd to me.
Hmm, we have discussed this topic very lengthy and to summarize it, we don't want to have dependencies for the core which translates to: we don't want the core to depend on avalon. On the technical side this means: moving from marker interfaces to POJOs.
With ECM++ ..eh..our own container, we are free to do what we want and we can provide a smooth migration path.
Carsten
