Peter Donald wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:40, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

 2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
    (no more fancy names, pleeease)

The initial name for this was AUT (Avalon Utility Toolkit). However we dropped that idea as we needed to get a stable release out for cocoon. We could revive that but I am not sure it is a great idea.
In this world, there is only one thing we are sure of... well sort of...

Either way I would -1 any backwards incompatible changes to anything released as 100% stable (in particular framework/logkit) even though from a technical perspective it would be nice ;).
This is a normal rule for anything in Apache, I would -1 it too.

Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
contracts for hosting server applications.
This is a very delicate point.

Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
should be a project in its own right.

I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
we should unite?
-1
for the same reasons I have already explained to you when you asked me last time ;)
I need solutions, not vetos, which BTW do not count in this scenario: please do not veto, counterpropose.

Please explain your proposal here, we need to decide what to do and not keep this thing in a limbo...

...if you wish, of course, I don't want to rush anybody unneedlessly.

But the question will eventually surface again. Soon.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

Reply via email to