Nicola,
I'll continue in the devils advocate mode a while longer ...We'd not seen the Tomcat team come to us and say "we love Avalon's ideas but give us a container that we can work with".
IMHO having multiple containers is one of the reasons that stamps us as a "research" project, not ready for real-life usage (not true, of course, but happens to be percieved). The reasonong is that having multiple implementation is the proof that none of them is good enough.
Our problem was that we blurred the name 'Avalon' We were inprecise about Avalon-Framework, AvalonX AvalonY etc.
We have no proven need for an UberContainer (as per Agile definitions - simplest thing et al). We will shortly be back in the big-plan, mega-design, architecture purgatory. Currently we are attacking the CVS depots. It's not the first time it has happend twice now in my time. I'm going to take a wild guess here that nobody other Stephen (who is in the joyous position of being paid to work on Open Source, for a company leveraging that for commercial gain - no 'tools boy' he) has the bandwidth to do the entire thing. I;ve already see a cuple of the newer enthusiasts post tentative "great idea, but I am not sure I have the time" mails.
A worse sin, not yet quite prevalent here is typical of companies where some team of new brooms comes in (with lofty architect titles), and take ten seconds to diss their predecessors work, and suggest complete rewrite. I used to be one of them. Nowadays, I hold this ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html ) to be a guiding lesson. We're not quite the same here, but I feel it was wrong for us to propose, vote, accept the need for rewrite when we've barely gathered a community for Avalon-Framework (our principal art). I appreciate that we have accpeted that it will happen though.
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
