> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:42, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > 1. Because the Avalon project voted that we should migrate to
> > Commons CLI and not Spice CLI.
>
> Nope.
>
> I would have vetoed any code change that led to that.
And you did. My mistake - my view of reality appears distorted.
However, I blame it all on Berin - his "Evening out the Release
Schedule" thread listed Excalibut CLI -> Commons CLI as a migration
path.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=104698191317412&w=2
Either that, or the dog ate my email.
> As Noel pointed out I have pointed out the problems I have
> with it numerous times in the past.
Those issues being:
1. It has additional dependencies
2. It's not under our control
(1) appeared fairly inconsequential - it had deps on Commons/Lang.
As for (2) well, Spice isn't either, is it?
> > and then ket us help you resolve them instead of going off
> > by yourself 90 degrees from the voted and decided path.
>
> Actually Berin was supportive when I mentioned it the first
> time which is why I did it. (And I plan to do the same to parts
> of io as long as it remains deprecated and there is no high quality
> alternative).
Well, I think there's a difference of interpertation here.
I think you refer to this mail:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=104583538310053&w=2
PeterD: No need to deprecate something that works and is mor
PeterD: eloosely coupled than the alternative. However it may
PeterD: be best to move it out of Avalon.
Berin: I think that is what everyone wants. I have no problems with the
Spice
Berin: project hosting it.
I interpreted "hosting" as just taking the existing code as-is, and,
well, host it. I.e. put in on a server. I didn't read that as
fold it into the spice project by:
+ changing license
+ renaming packages
+ making Avalon code dependent on Spice-licensed code.
With Excalibur CLI migrating to a compatibility project, I'd prefer
to have Phoenix depend on *that*, and then, perhaps, move to Commons CLI
if it ever should become acceptable.
> The basic thing is that there is plenty of code in Avalon
> that was written by me and was basically only maintained by
> me.
> Some of it sucks, some is usable and some is good. If
> Avalon wants it out then I am more than happy to move it
> out and will do so.
Well, there's moving out and moving out. I think the moving out
of Excalibur CLI has not been done in quite the way I thought it
would happen, and not quite in the way I think is best for Avalon.
> The problem occurs because people who don't contribute to a
> component/area but are more than willing to tell others what
> to do.
There are times when one should speak up *fast* to stop something,
or to avert something that may become a future problem.
For example, I oppose the Spice dependency as I see it leading to
future problems - licensing, dependencies, etc. You did much the
same regarding the Lifecycle-in-Framework discussion.
I don't see this as a problem.
If I make a change to some code that someone else thinks is bad
because it will cause problems down the road for some reason, I
don't mind hearing that person. Only if the other person is totally
uninterested in a compromise or in figuring out a solution is there
a problem. But I haven't seen much of that here.
Look, how about we meet half way - would you support going back to
Excalibur CLI (hosted in the Excalibur compatibility project here
at Apache), if I do the work?
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
