On Friday 28 December 2001 03:50 pm, you wrote: > I am saying that *strict* backwards compatibility would not allow me to > change the implementation of a Component from Loggable to LogEnabled. > If we _relax_ that requirement so that only the role interface and > contracts surrounding it must remain backwards compatible, then I could > change Loggable to LogEnabled. I would also be able to later add > Initializable, or remove Contextualizable. > > For Components, the lifecycle interfaces are supposed to be different > concerns. > > so the vote is: Do we enforce *strict* backwards compatibility or *relaxed* > backwards compatibility?
(although my vote doesn't count)... I say relax it. If you are using a component you should always be taking it through the full lifecycle initialization, and if you have a custom container that doesn't do so, too bad so sad. Of course with some of the code that you are talking about creating as part of the ECM overhaul (the lifecycle helper) sounds like it will make creating a custom container much easier. -pete -- peter royal -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
