On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 12:20, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > Kurt Schrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > > >> to make this clear, once for all, > >> > >> I DON'T _WANT_ TO USE THEIR LIFECYCLE! > > >Can you make it clear why you don't want to use their lifecycle? > > Because, _I_ personally would prefer a "commons-lifecycle" package > where all the projects that _want_ to use lifecycle interfaces can > meet on "common ground". > > I personally fear that once other projects start to use the "xxx-lifecycle > classes", and the developers of the "xxx" project decide that they want > to change something on these classes, they might not even bother to ask > their external users. Mainly because it is the "xxx-lifecycle" package.
Perhaps it is only _my_ bad experience with commons, but I feel avalon framework is much more likely to remain a stable API then most of commons. Avalon is and has always been intended for use by other projects, and has done an excellent job at it. Look at all the pain the are going through to provide a migration path from ECM to more modern containers -- backward compatibility is important to them. Contrast this to commons where things seem to change constantly. I have two versions of commons-lang in my classpath, as well as still having commons-util, just to provide the same services under different names depending on what is using them. > Commons IMHO was always intended to be a meeting ground for all > jakarta code developers from all jakarta projects. Here, packages are > a lot less loaded with political or project specific issues, mainly > because they're _intended_ to be used in lots of different projects. > The attitude of some Avalon developers towards IoC and CoC pattern > makes me shiver. Please elaborate. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
