RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon

[Sam Ruby]

Berin Loritsch wrote:

>>> I would love to see Avalon migrate to something better. The
>>> problem is that "better" is hard to define
>>
>> "consensus" is not hard to define.
>
> I think he was speaking technically.

In essence, I was agreeing with him, and pointing the way to the next step.

Look, I could have a lot of fun here, and:

1) Tell Stefano that he needs to go reimplement XSP by subclassing JSP, and treat any response other than complete agreeement as an indication that he was not being a team player.

2) Respond to Peter when he says that OOP sucks by saying "fine, go create a single modular container that allows people to plug in the functionallity they need and unplug what they don't need".

Neither would be helpful.

Arguments that Sun found it necessary to have J2ME/J2SE/J2EE don't explain why there must be a Phoenix, Merlin, and Fortress. Nor do observations that "we have tried in the past to create a unified container and failed".

If the consensus is that the Avalon community needs exactly 42 containers that's OK - as long as there is consensus on the scope, visibility, and design direction of each effort. This does not mean that there needs to be consensus of opinion on the viability of any given design approach; merely that the idea merits exploration - even if the ultimate result is only to prove that it is indeed a dead end.

And another impotant point, vetoes should not be used after the fact in an attempt to change the agreed upon scope of such an effort.

- Sam Ruby


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