On 2/1/02 3:49 PM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, I agree with Peter: the commons will get too big and has a >> too loose structure to control things like this (which is still >> not the case with Avalon). > > Which is also why I don't want to use Avalon to put my shared code. > When you need a repository of random components, and you want as many people > as possible to contribute to it and share their code, you can't have a rigid > structure, or they'll choose not to bother. > Since we want to maximize code sharing, we need the loose structure. But the point of commons is *not* to make things to conform to a structure like a framework. Other than documentation and hopefully build procedures, the components should be free to be architected as the component developers wish. If we start forcing "You must use XYZ" then we have Yet Another Framework, right? geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
