Just taking care of paperwork - my vote on this is +1 on Avalon 5.

Cheers, Steve.

Stephen McConnell wrote:


Berin:

I think that there is a problem with the subject you are
requesting a vote on.

 * There is the issue of the evolution of the Avalon
   component API specification - refining, evolving,
   based on what we have.  Wether this is 4.3, 5 or
   6 is not the issue - the issue is identification
   is problems and resolution of solutions.

 * There is the issue of the container framework.  This
   does not need 5, 6 or whatever - what we have at the
   client contract level has only a minimal impact on
   the objective of a common containement architecture
   and profile based containers.

If you were to rephrase the question along the lines of
"are we starting out with a clean sheet of paper" with
respect to containerment architecture then I'm totally
with with you.  That process will result in resolution
and evolution of the avalon framework contract.

Cheers, Steve.


Berin Loritsch wrote:

This is a vote to clarify whether we want to focus all
our discussions of the new unified container to Avalon 5
(next generation) or Avalon 4.1 (current generation).
Here are the implications:

Avalon 4.1
----------
Current development.  We refine current interfaces so that
the contracts are more universal and testable.  This includes
the semantics we have surrounding Context and Serviceable.
It also means that we can't clean up the cruft.  (deprecated
stuff remains deprecated).

Avalon 5
--------
New development/clean slate.  We leverage our experience with
lifecycle interfaces to provide a starting point, but we do
not limit ourselves to that alone.  We can clean up the cruft,
but we must supply a "Compatibility JAR" to allow easy migration
from Avalon 4.1 to Avalon 5.  We can also shorten the package
names (minor, but sometimes helpful).  It also helps us unify
on a new product.

If we continue version 4.1 development we don't have the
luxury of challenging any of the current lifecycle interfaces
or making things just simply easier to use.

Implied in either action is that the existing containers continue
to live their lives until the new container is complete.


Which is it? Unified Container == Avalon 4.1 or Avalon 5?


(Voting to remain open as long as necessary [not less than a week]).

Please provide a quick comment why you made your choice (either
way).

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>








--

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net




-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Reply via email to