I still think that this is not the main motivation for the existence of the Commons.
It is NOT important which was the historical reason. What is important is that the Commons and Avalon have different orientations and both are useful. Commons is more of a playground and more "loose components" oriented. Avalon is more framework-ish. I like to use things from both and I like the idea of having the loose bits of Avalon at the commons, if adequate protective rules are in place. By protective rules I mean: it is better to have a diversity of components that do the same thing than having the "spirit" of a package subverted. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:12 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: Commons/Avalon [was Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging > 1.0 Release] > > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:33, Sam Ruby wrote: > > This being said, I should have added, this problem has been since been > > addressed quite satisfactorily. > > "since" - Oh really? > > Why is it that you always tend to say these things and then qualify them > after the fact? Hmmm. > > -- > Cheers, > > Pete > > *------------------------------------------------* > | Trying is the first step to failure. | > | So never try, Lisa - Homer Jay Simpson | > *------------------------------------------------* > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
