Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Today Avalon (the brand) represents 1, 2 and 3. In Pete's message
> > he's talking about Avalon in terms of point 1, not in terms of 1..3.
> > I think that maybe we do have a "brand management" problem (wow,
> > actually got in the 'm' word on an open-source list :-)). There
> > are two exit mechanisms here:
>
> I've got another one that models the current setup in many java
> specifications:
[snip]
> Summary:
> --------
> I think it is the best move in both a logical and a
> marketing sense, to make Avalon a specification of a
> framework, and Phoenix the reference implementation
> of that framework.
> This will clarify to the world what Avalon is, and also
> strengthen the Phoenix brand. It follows the setup used
> for official java specifications, which has many
> advantages:
> - it will become easier (even transparent) for users
> of Avalon-enabled components to swap implementations
> - likewise, it will be easier to develop a new
> implementation as parts of phoenix are easily re-used.
> - the separation between interface and implementation
> is complete.
> - the model will be similar for anyone who has worked
> with existing java specifications, thus reducing the
> learning curve.
+ 3.5
When discussing marketing or brand management you can always
go beyond a 1 :-). I think Leo has made an excellent proposal.
I really like the positioning of Phoenix as a RI. This will
help with broader take-up but providing a core engine, stable,
reference sites, etc, - demonstrating and reinforcing the
Avalon best-practice.
Steve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
