On 2/1/02 4:13 PM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geir :
>> 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 ?
>
Rereading...
Yep - sorry. I didn't get my point across...
I guess what I am saying is that if we want Commons to be a loose structure,
where each piece can do whatever it wants to, then changing from 'committer
for one is a committer for all' to 'committer for one is just that...' makes
sense.... You can't force a change by just joining in, like peter did by
adding himself to a file, he was able to offer a binding veto on the release
of something he never contributed to.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the
freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
