At 10:48 19/4/01 +0200, Leo Simons wrote: >I think we need to look at the larger picture. >What we want to do with avalon is provide best- >of-practice software design and code. What is >the best organisation for a generic, medium-to- >large project like Avalon, where the most >important target are the third-party developers? > >IMHO: > >1) a well-documented specification (interfaces; contracts) >2) a (reference) implementation that does nothing more >than implement that specification
what specification? We don't have one. >3) extensions that extend the specification and the >implementation >4) reusable, pluggable components that provide >commonly-needed code for programs that use the >specification >5) programs that use the specification >6) external APIs used by the spec > >1 = interfaces, contracts, documentation. Stuff like >Application, the lifecycle spec, etc. >2 = implementation of interfaces. This should include >an implementation of atlantis (i.e. the current phoenix). >3 = while 1 can contain some optional parts, 3 contains >those parts that are not likely to be used in more than >say 60% of applications. >4 = this is stuff like the delegating sax handler from >XCommander. >5 = everything built on top of Avalon. >6 = complete J2SE, JMX API, etc. > >The organisation we should thus strive for, package-wise: > >1) org.apache.avalon containing interfaces and contracts >2) org.apache.phoenix as the RI >3) org.apache.avalon.** & org.apache.phoenix.** containing > implementations >4) org.apache.excalibur for reusable components. >5) org.apache.tomcat; org.apache.xcommander; > org.apache.commons.*; org.apache.commons.avalon.* etc. >6) org.apache.jmx; javax.*; org.apache.log.* etc. > >With this in mind, excalibur could indeed be a separate >CVS. But not in the role you suggest here. Excalibur now >is purely a container for stuff not ready to move into >org.apache.avalon yet and thus should be kept with >that CVS. Your model only works if we consider Avalon as just an application server. As soon as this assumption breakes the model falls down. I don't make that assumption (and I would argue against it) so ... Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------* --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
