Re: [PROPOSAL] a clazz act

[Stephen McConnell]

Based on the feedback on this so far there are a couple of things I think I can summarise:

* doing anything sophisticated re commit privs isn't going
to fly so lets drop that idea

* there are issues concerning the sandbox status of [clazz] that impact solutions we develop with the objective of establishing a framework level solution

I've been thinking about the question of where this should happen - here or over on commons. My conclusion is that that it should happen here because this is something that concerns this community - after all, we are talking about a common meta model solution for avalon. On the otherhand I don't see much benefit in kicking something new off without at least of couple of people from Avalon jumping in as well.
That seems to leave me with three strategies:

(A) Introduce a third Avalon meta model implementation based on [clazz] that while out of scope in terms of a framework solution in the short term - would aim to meet the original objectives of the proposal.

(B) Evolving the existing meta package to follow the same object model as [clazz] - i.e. addition of a meta-meta layer equivalent to the core subset of [clazz] dealing with class, property and operation defintions. This would enable the conservative approach of potentially incorporating [clazz] classes at a later stage when and if [clazz] is out of commons sandbox.

(C) Continue with what we have.

Any thoughts on the three options above or other options/ideas I have not thought about?

Cheers, Steve.


--

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net




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