Point taken, Paul. Keep in mind that compliance is measured in terms of Framework version. If a container is 4.1 compliant, then it is compliant to Avalon Framework 4.1 specifications. If a container is 5.0 compliant, then it is compliant to Avalon Framework 5.0 specifications.
We will have to write Avalon Framework 5.0, and the compliant container if we choose that path. We haven't discussed naming yet, and we are determining which Framework version we are working to be compatible with. > From: Paul Hammant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Which is it? Unified Container == Avalon 4.1 or Avalon 5? > > > > +1 for Avalon 5 > > > > It provides a new platform to build a unified community, and > > clean up cruft so we have nothing deprecated. It also provides > > opportunity to get input from other Apache communities to help > > shape our decisions. > > We will have to be *real* careful with our naming. Are we > still going to refer to the interfaces > as Avalon-Framework ? Or are they Avalon too. I really think > we need to have a different name for > the uber container as there are people out there that use the > interfaces in their internal > mainable() projects. > > IMHO.. > Avalon == group of projects > Avalon-Framework == lifecycle interfaces (our art) > Containix == the reference ubercontainer > Avalon-Phoenix == a generation 1 container, wound down when > Containix reaches 1.0 > > There is already enough confusion without making... > > group-of-projects == framework == reference container > > -ph > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
