Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Our current (controversial ;) ) plan is to consider the sitemap and
the component aspect of the original block proposal as separate
concerns and (at least initially) solve them separately.
I propose less controversial plan.
As the first step, implement what you call "sitemap blocks", but call
them simply "blocks". Own classloader, full classloading isolation,
block protocol, exposing direct sitemap components: generators,
transformers, serializers.
I'm working on this part and I'm using the names that you all love ;)
As the second step, implement "components block" *on top of* "sitemap
blocks". This introduces second classloader (one is public, to share
component interfaces, and one is private, to contain components
implementation and libraries), and logic for managing classloader
trees. Still call it simply "block".
I and Pier find this a mix of concern of reasons that you can find in
the archive. If we leave the mix of concern issue for the moment, your
plan involves *waiting* on the first step. That is for sure
uncontroversial, waiting on various component management refactorings
and so on, has been the main activity for most of us, most of the time
during the years that has past since Stefano's original proposal.
Pier's proposal to actually start *doing* something about the "component
block" part of the equation right now, was way cooler, IMHO.
I believe it when I see it ;-)
--
Stefano.
