Peter Donald wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:37, Berin Loritsch wrote:
The ComponentValidator code has been fixed yet again. It's real home
belongs in Framework, and I propose to move it to Framework in the
following package:
org.apache.avalon.framework.component.ComponentValidator
This tool is used to verify the contracts of a Component's life cycle. It
is invaluable for development. Do not vote in the negative if you just
want to be a PITA, or if you will not use it. Vote in the negative if
there is some stronger architectural or design issue at steak.
-1
It encourages bad practices - as exhibited by your dangerous fantasy that
this will somehow make the application more secure.
I don't see how validating lifecycle is concidered bad practice! That statement
makes absolutely 0 sense. As does the statement that it _inherently_ makes
more secure. Security is a big subject covering many different aspects. Just
as IoC !~ (read 'not equivalent') security, neither does this. HOWEVER, it
is a tool used to reach security.
Verifying the lifecycle stages is a responsability of the container writer.
If you want to write a tool that makes it easy for the container writer to
write tests then go for it. Making sure the container is operational is not
the component writers responsibility.
I disagree with you again on this point. Any mission critical component must
verify it's contracts and enforce them. Beyond that, it is the Component
writer's
responsibility to ensure that their component is used in an authorized fashion.
Out of order lifecycles are not authorized use. Robbing someone of that tool
is ludicrous.
So far I haven't seen any argument that I would call legitimate for even
using it - let alone encouraging its wide use. If you really want it in
framework then feel free to chuck it in a proposal directory on the condition
that it doesn't appear in source or binary form in the upcomming release.
Maybe you can convince me after release (using logic).
As I have not seen any argument against that I would call legitimate for *not*
using it. I would highly recommend enforcing lifecycle control. I even condone
it in the Developing with Avalon paper. As to convincing you with logic, on
this
point I don't know if it is possible. You won't hear logic.
Besides I am a PITA and I won't use it ;)
Ah, the real reason comes out ;)
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
