Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Today Avalon (the brand) represents 1, 2 and 3. In Pete's message > > he's talking about Avalon in terms of point 1, not in terms of 1..3. > > I think that maybe we do have a "brand management" problem (wow, > > actually got in the 'm' word on an open-source list :-)). There > > are two exit mechanisms here: > > I've got another one that models the current setup in many java > specifications:
[snip] > Summary: > -------- > I think it is the best move in both a logical and a > marketing sense, to make Avalon a specification of a > framework, and Phoenix the reference implementation > of that framework. > This will clarify to the world what Avalon is, and also > strengthen the Phoenix brand. It follows the setup used > for official java specifications, which has many > advantages: > - it will become easier (even transparent) for users > of Avalon-enabled components to swap implementations > - likewise, it will be easier to develop a new > implementation as parts of phoenix are easily re-used. > - the separation between interface and implementation > is complete. > - the model will be similar for anyone who has worked > with existing java specifications, thus reducing the > learning curve. + 3.5 When discussing marketing or brand management you can always go beyond a 1 :-). I think Leo has made an excellent proposal. I really like the positioning of Phoenix as a RI. This will help with broader take-up but providing a core engine, stable, reference sites, etc, - demonstrating and reinforcing the Avalon best-practice. Steve. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
