Peter Donald wrote: > However while people still insist that mixing concerns is a good thing > then I doubt there can be just one container. > > It would be an absolutely fantastic thing to have one though.
One container or many, it matters not. As long as all the containers follow the exact same set of rules and thus everything below them were truly re-uesable in any other container. But the promised of Avalon is betrayed immediately when (COP != reUseability), for any reason, including but not limited to container hell. Same with the syntactical rules. If one has one set of syntactical rules, and another has another, all you are doing is confirming that the syntactical rules are like straight OO, chaos reigns. KISS again. There is also the branding problem - competing containers can really confuse the prospective market. If there is a payoff in doing that, I don't see it, but I am an outsider so maybe there is more there than meets the eye. I have been reading Avalon posts for months and I still couldn't tell you what the containers are for. What it says to me is *hey, we got this really cool idea but we couldn't really make it work smoothly, so we just fudged it a few different ways and now we can't really tell which one works*. Now I know in my cortex that this isn't the case, but still the taste in the mouth lingers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
