At 09:52 20/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote: >Peter Donald wrote: >> >> At 11:12 19/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote: >> >-1 for all the reasons outlined in my other email. We need to make sure >> > that Avalon is not only Modular, but that it isn't fragmented either. >> > It's a fine line to walk--and I think that this should be revisited >> > when JSR-111 has it's first public deliverable. >> >> Well it is probably best to look at use case. As I have said before most of >> my uses of the framework part do not need *anything* out of excalibur >> (except maybe CLI package). The framework is just that - framework - >> completely independent of any arbitrary components created using said >> framework. > >If you don't need it, don't use it. Simple.
stupid arguement - do I really need to point out why ? >> What benefit to our users does including the components provide? > >Tons. It means that they don't have to reinvent the wheel if they don't >want to. It means that they have examples readily available of the >framework in action. People are basically lazy, and won't bother looking >in another project (even if it is associated) so they will start implementing >their own version of things before they realize that they are wasting or >have wasted time on something that works just as well. So why not include all the commons projects in avalonapi? >> >I think the timing is bad for this kind of move, because the ramifications >> >can't possibly be completely thought out yet. >> >> agreed - but I am reluctant to beta-ize before doing this. > >Why is that? All I am saying is go beta with the components in the jar. >We can then discuss the ramifications, so that for a _distant_ release >we will revisit this. So we go beta now with the assumption that we will change the arrangement later to break everyones builds ? Does that really sound like a good thing? >To be honest, I would have a real problem if we didn't go beta because >you didn't get to remove excalibur into a new CVS. According to all the >feedback, noone agrees with the move--so why do it? And why punish those >of us who want beta and stability because we don't have a separate CVS? I am not punishing you in anyway - you are free to put in the work and veto any changes that come along - thats the beauty of a meritocracy. I have already compromised enough on technical matters - consider this the line in the sand - no further will I compromise. I don't mind supporting a beta even if it is not 100% what I want - however this goes beyond what I consider an acceptable compromise. 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]
