[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As i understood, assembly and meta will come as the basis of Phoenix, Fortress
and Merlin assemblies ???
all that is undecided. We have decided that we would like a common container which satisfies the use case of all of the above (and ECM), in a single unified codebase. It has not been determined at all how much of this code will come from the current merlin and assembly dirs in sandbox. I'm kinda wondering here how all you guys got this idea...?

In something like a six month time frame.
timeframes are always icky. Depends on who does the work :D

Am i wrong ?
yep ;)

So, what is still to be done ?
basically the stuff on the roadmap. Try the avalon-users archive for a list of things you could pick up :D

I think i will base my devs on this as i don't want to be container-dependant.
So i would like to know what parts have stable design and stable implementations
?? Which are to be leveraged and validated ??
phoenix and ECM are stable. Fortress is mostly, codewise, and will see a release soon.

Could you send it to me please ??
http://avalon.apache.org/project/roadmap.html

Great! The version i got by CVS don't show this ? Is there a place in the CVS
where the framework is complete (apart assembly and meta) ?
your question is unclear...what do you mean by framework? We always distinguish avalon-framework (the stuff in the "avalon" cvs module) from everything else. Avalon-framework is complete, and its component package has been deprecated for a year or so (ever since 4.1 I think).

I could help a lot
on documentation as a start...
that'd be great! The thing that needs most work is the Developing with Avalon paper, which is in the avalon-site module. Some pointers: http://avalon.apache.org/project/patches.html

Question by the way: org.apache.avalon.excalibur.* is old design and
org.apache.excalibur.* is the new, right ??
yep.

cheers,

- Leo



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to