[PN/NH] Component definition
niclas at hedhman.org
Mon Nov 1 02:17:11 EST 2004
[ PN/NH stands for a series of mails reporting on the various discussions that
I and Peter Neubauer have been talking about in face-to-face 'meetings' over
the last few days on his visit to Kuala Lumpur. ]
Our current blocks can expose services, and later when we get to configuration
routing, they are effectively components. But blocks are stand-alone entities
that can be loaded and unloaded by themselves, which "native components" can
not (for instance, may require classes not available in the classloader).
And if components are not loadable in a running server, the question could
then be "Are they really Components, or merely building blocks or parts for
the making of components?"
I would *REALLY* love to have a definition where a component is a loadable
item into a running instance of a server. Today we call that a block. And the
<component> would then be a "part".
Now, this imposes a change that I think is too great at this point, but
perhaps it could be tackled by higher level and documentation definition
"Block Oriented Programming"
"Block" with capital B, for the Metro definition of Block, just like
"Component" was different than "component" in Avalon.
And we should probably structure the documentation along the lines of Block vs
Part concerns, and so forth.
/ http://www.bali.ac /
/ http://niclas.hedhman.org /
More information about the dev-dpml