RE: Where does people stand?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

I took off the [POLL] from this since I'm including actual text response to
discuss your points.  I've removed points for which I had neither comment
nor disagreement.

> Components are more than code.

As a friend of mine is wont to say, it all comes down to 1s and 0s in the
end.  So unless you mean documentation, it is all code.  Design doesn't
matter unless it is reflected in code, since computers can't run design.
Meta-data is just a form of code, since something gets executed.

> Components should come in "a box", dropped in place and used without even
need
> to look at it.

Depends upon the level of discourse.

> Without a large Component Repository, COP is pretty meaningless.

I think that's a little strong.  But the stronger the library, the more
compelling and inviting the solution.

> Components should be runtime replacable. A true server doesn't need
restart.

Ideally, yes.  Few systems are quite so nice in practice.

> Avalon-compliant Components could be made to work in non-Avalon-compliant
> containers, effectively running as POJOs, by the Component Author.

That depends upon their other dependencies, e.g., Avalon lifecycle
interfaces, ties to other Avalon interfaces and components, etc.

On the flip-side of your comment, I do believe that we should be looking at
the re-use of other components, that fit your "POJO" description, within
Avalon through the use of adapters.  Avalon need not write and maintain its
own configuration, logging, pooling, etc., implementations if it can cleanly
adapt those from other projects in those domains.

	--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org