First, Stefano, relax - I didn't want to attack you directly. Don't assume that all my comments were hinting at something you did!
Sorry but it looked pretty personal to me.
Apologies if it was not the case.
Moving the SourceFactory to Avalon made a mess. This is what I'm mostly concerned at the moment. What is the status of this?
I personally don't see that it made a mess.
Change line 192 of the current build.xml file from
<!-- [FIXME] THE DEPENDENCY ON DEPRECATED SHOULD GO AWAY!!!! -->
<path location="${deprecated.src}"/>
<path location="${build.src}"/>
<path location="${java}"/>to
<!-- [FIXME] THE DEPENDENCY ON DEPRECATED SHOULD GO AWAY!!!! -->
<!--path location="${deprecated.src}"/-->
<path location="${build.src}"/>
<path location="${java}"/>and recompile.
You'll see what I consider a mess.
I don't necessarely blame the Source refactoring since it could well be that some files were moved to 'deprecated' even if they didn't belong there. I would like to hear your opinion on this since you know the internals of this stuff more than I do.
Ok, but let's not argue about that. The status is that the move is finished, the avalon version is stable and can be released as 1.0 immediately - all parts in the core of Cocoon are using the avalon version, and the old cocoon version is deprecated but of course still supported.
So, why we can't compile the core without the deprecated classes?
Deprecated classes should depend on core (obviously) and should be packaged separately for those who need back compatibility, but should not block the core compilation.
Do others believe that I acted on my personal behalf against community decisions?
What do you want to achieve with this question?
I just want to know if others believed that I did refactoring against the will of this community.
I believe that sometimes somebody has to step up and do stuff, at the same time I don't want to step on anybody's toes doing this.
I want to know if somebody feels like I'm doing this but remains silent because of any reason.
-- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham] --------------------------------------------------------------------
