Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Peter,

Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:49, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> 
>>  * that the package be migrated from the avalon-sandbox
>>    CVS to the avalon CVS as a separate project along-side
>>    the avalon framework
> 
> -1 as it does not belong at same level as framework.

we have discussed moving materials which do not belong at the same level 
as avalon-framework into the avalon CVS module before. Can you motivate 
why you think that is not a good idea?

>>  * the release of the avalon-lifecycle package shall be
>>    considered as an "optional" extension to the framework
>>    contracts
> 
> -1 
> 
> It is the same approach that has been done before and failed and can't cleanly 
> produce some aspects like delayed activation, passivation, persistence, 
> transaction demarcation, bifuricating interception etc.

Taking your -1 as a veto rather than an opinion, you should provide a 
viable alternative for it to be valid, which AFAIK you haven't done. 
Could you?

Also, could you please provide more specific information about why the 
approach in the lifecycle package fails, perhaps with a code example?

I would also like to point out that IMHO you're "throwing a veto" rather 
lightly. I think it makes the discussion more productive if you take 
some more effort to back a -1 before issueing it. We've pretty much all 
come to the conclusion that vetoes should be a last resort, not a first 
one. Could you either explain why you disagree with that, or start 
following that guideline?

cheers!

- Leo