> 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?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant by 'loose structure' ('rigid structure' =
framework).
Did you understand my comments in another way ?
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
