Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2005-03-22 05:40:07
Size: 2397
Editor: anonymous
Comment: missing edit-log entry for this revision
Revision 2 as of 2009-09-20 23:16:52
Size: 2397
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
No differences found!

Status Report AvalonAssembly 07-DEC-02

Over the past couple of months work has focussed on the assembly, meta and Merlin packages as part of the transition out of Excalibur and into the avalon-sandbox project. The transition involved a number of changes that are listed below:

#refactoring of the classloading mechanisms (following Berin's suggestions from way back) taking into consideration the discussions concerning a profile driven container #incorporation of support for the concepts and direction established in the "context discussions" including the ability to customize your contextualization interface (Leo's process) #clean separation of component deployment (under Appliance) as distinct from development templates (under Profile) (Gary's comments on separation of concerns) #addition of a appliance customization layer that makes is drop-dead simple to set up an component management engine and launch customized components(Steve) #addition of test cases #elimination of the necessity to explicitly declare components in jar file (files are now auto scanned) (Steve) #improvements to the logging system (Vinay Chandran patches) #addition of proxy support for { { { ComponentManager and ComponentSelector } } } (content from Berin in framework)

Structurally speaking - the excalibur/assembly (Merlin 2.0) package has been split into two the distinct packages - avalon-sandbox/assembly and avalon-sandbox/merlin (refer AvalonMerlin). The updated sandbox assembly package is independent of a containment strategy - it basically handles all of the stuff to do with component deployment.

Operationally speaking there are some changes that need to be considered.

Aside from documentation updating, there are still a couple of more things to be done before Assembly 1.0 stabilizes - namely some more work on the context area to integrate an abstract location implementation model and handling of alias declarations, and secondly - based on the success of the context implementation approach, I would like to see the assembly package move closer to the deployment state model described on AvalonFiveLifecycleProposal. To go from where we are now to that model is not a big jump in terms of the code - but I thing it will be a massive jump in terms of overall flexibility in that we will be able to support arbitrary component models.

StephenMcConnell

AvalonAssemblyStatusReportOne (last edited 2009-09-20 23:16:52 by localhost)