Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 14 March 2003 20:02, Peter Donald wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:10, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
This is the problem and Peter appears to be the only one *really*
watching over what's going on in this project. Probably because he's
doing some sneaky moves himself so he's more sensible about them.
Please don't. I have been fairly open about what I am going to be doing
over next bit.
I am moving all the code out that I am sole author for. I am encouraging
others to do the same - I hope within a few months that most of avalon-apps
will be gone and significant portions of excalibur will also be gone. Paul
has already moved some stuff out, as has Eung-Ju and I. I have been poking
the other Peter to do the same.
In time I will start poking some of the Cocoon peeps to migrate some of the
Cocoon originated stuff back into Cocoon - much better for Cocoon that way
and hopefully better for Avalon.
Post fortress release I intend to attempt to get framework cleaned up; marker interfaces, component.*, *Selectors deprecated. Provide a solid ECM-> fortress migration path and finally start process of dumping the crappy code we have been carrying for ages.
At the same time I have consolidating Phoenix. Basically means getting unit
tests solid and trying to get 95% test coverage on all the supporting
libraries. I also plan to make it more agile by reducing dependencies,
reducing duplication, internal decoupling and so forth.
In the end I want to see the majority of cornerstone/excalibur/apps gone.
Framework to be half deprecated, docs to be decrufted. Hows that for
sneaky?
Hooahh, and how much of that will affect me, just starting to migrate my "legacy" application to Avalon-Phoenix?? Not at all? A little bit?
Please note that the comments express by Peter Donald should in no way be considered as a position of this community or in any way reflective of the community consensus.
I think everybody around apache knows that and Niclas has been around for enough time to know this very well.
Please excuse my ignorance. I have not had the opportunity of meeting Niclas Hedhman on-line or off. From his comments it was apparent to me that he considered the comments and opinions as expressed by Peter Donald's as in some way or form an indication of the community opinion. My response was provided with the objective of reassuring Niclas Hedhman that the Avalon Community has not taken any such decision. I would like to reassert the point that the opinions stated by Peter Donald are his own and should not be interpreted in any way or form as a reflection of the opinions of the Avalon Community at this time.
Irrespective of the actions of Peter Donald within or external to the Avalon Community, concrete and viable solutions exist today to protect any investment you make into the development of Phoenix components. However, from a pragmatic development perspective, I would strongly recommend that you do not use interfaces or classes under the phoenix namespace - which simply means that you are building a portable component. For more information concerning the development of a code base that is container independent - you can email requests to either the user or dev list. For an example of a complex Phoenix style application that is maintaining container independence please take a look at the James project.
Can we stop throwing FUD and get back to work together?
You prior email referred to the Avalon Lifecycle project as a "hack". This email refers to real and pragmatic suggestions concerning the use and development of components related to Phoenix as FUD. I'm assuming your "hack" remark was made with the same degree of indifference to the subject as the message from Peter Donald. Should I assume your FUD remark is made is the same vain or should I assume that you have something more substantive to put forward?
Lets' focus on the important aspects. There is in my personal perception - some degree on instability related to the Phoenix project. I (personally and as a community member) do not consider this as a problem on the grounds that (a) there are several members of the Phoenix community that are capable of maintaining the product, and (b) components developer for Phoenix can be deployed today in non-Phoenix containers. I.e. in the worst case scenario there is a viable solution for the user community.
Sheesh.
No familiar with that particular word.
:-)
if there is something wrong with Phoenix, what stops you from going there and fix it instead of whining or even propose your own version of it?
Sorry - but where exactly am I whining about Phoenix? I am only presenting those actions that I happen to consider as the most appropriate for any developer using the Phoenix product. Based on the comments from Peter Donald, he is clearly and without community consultation undermining the decisions of the same community. Peter Donald has the right to do this - however, as a member of this community, I am concerned about the interests of users of the Avalon technologies. In particular up on the top-seven of my concerns are the users of the Phoenix application. The community surrounding this application are demonstrating a very clear silence with respect to the technical direction of the project with the single exception of Peter Donald. In that particular case, Peter Donald is choosing to undermine community interests in favor of his own. Naturally, while I don't endorse this actions - I am concerned with the impact of his actions on the greater Avalon Community.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
