> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Leo Sutic wrote:
> >
> <snip/>
>
> >>Really. You think Avalon Framework has changed *that* much?
> >>If I am not mistaken, EJB specs have changed a bit
> >>too--probably more so than Avalon 4.x.
> >
> >
> > The difference is that Avalon is the only framework where a user is
> > expected to write a container.
>
> That is rapidly changing. Between ECM, Fortress, Merlin, and
> Phoenix, they user will be able to just choose the container
> they want, and be done with it. With the extensions
> experiment and the work that Peter is doing on something more
> powerful, there will be very little need to even extend a container.
True, but I'm willing to bet that some people have indeed
written their own containers.
> The thing is we cannot police all our users to see what they
> are using. I posted this message to Cocoon-dev (at least I
> think I did) to warn them so that they can make an informed
> decision and increase their JDK pre-reqs for C2.2 or whatever
> version that they are going to release the new ECM with.
Look, the only reason the proxy generator is needed in the Cocoon
is for the Monitor package. Put the Component interface back in
and the problem is solved. The Cocoon people can then remain
JDK 1.2 compliant, or move to JDK 1.3, but that decision is then
independent of Avalon version.
I don't consider this "policing", I consider it taking care of
our user base and doing our best to help them even if they have put
themselves in a tight spot due to their own faults.
> > I don't want us to switch VM version, and only then realize that
> > "Oops, didn't anyone change the sys reqs. to be JVM 1.3+ ?"
> >
> > It would not look good.
>
> Which is why we give advanced notice.
Yes, but in this case we can do one better and remove the need for
notification.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
