> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:44 AM > > > At 06:04 PM 5/20/01 +0200, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > >I come to late to this thread, but as a recent user of > >parts of Avalon, this is my experience: > > > > - At the first sight, Avalon sure looks to be abusing > > some abstractions a bit - specially the roles thing. > > In this case, Conor MacNeill remarks seem to make some > > sense (one needs to absorb the "Avalon culture" to use > > some of those things); > > I would be interested in where you see problems of this in the framework > part of Avalon (I know they exist in Phoenix and to a lesser degree > cornerstone).
In the framework, I only see a couple of interfaces one has to get used and some people can still argue about then. However, they are quite ok with me: - Even the "most abstract" ones are non intrusive (you can ignore them and still do something); - They are mostly quite simple and a small price to pay to take advantage of a framework's functionality (all the "most abstract" ones seem to be framework related). I have no complains on the framework. > > - Another problem with Avalon, are package names like > > "excalibur" or "phoenix" that are (to say the least) > > a bit less helpful than I would like them; > > It is the apache way ;) Sorry, still don't like it. I would prefer a more meaningful name. > > - Many parts of Avalon are so highly reusable outside of > > the framework context, that it would even make a lot > > sense to move them to the Commons including, at least: > > Alternatively commons should never have been created and that group should > have worked with an existing project ;) Commons is more of a loose (CPAN-like?) structure to place any generic use utility while Avalon has another focus. There is a space for each. However, Avalon is only "being sold" as a framework and is not making a good enough job of "selling" its common use parts, except for the "log" components. I was quite pleasantly surprised when I finally took a look at the code and found a lot of components that can be use by them selves. I was also pleasantly surprised with the almost null dependencies of those components. There are Apache projects that make a very good job of selling (and even over valuating) themselves (Turbine?), but Avalon is doing a lousy job at that. > > - As for the documentation, it was quite easy to me to > > understand what I use trough the Javadocs, only taking > > a look to the source code in order to understand the > > the code's quality (which is quite good/clear for me). > > Unfortunately the javadocs assume that you understand the high-level > concepts and DPs (ie IOC/SOC/etc) which can be intimidating at first. > Luckily there is a tutorial and a papaer being prepared for ApacheCon, and > also I believe an article for JavaWorld in the works so hopefully there > will be more useful docs in that area real soon now ;) I still got it easily without being an Academic myself. (And my family name is not Einstein.) =:o) > Cheers, > > Pete > > *-----------------------------------------------------* > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > | everyone gets busy on the proof." | > | - John Kenneth Galbraith | > *-----------------------------------------------------* Of course! =;o) Have fun, Paulo Gaspar
