Berin Loritsch wrote:
Peter Donald wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:48, Berin Loritsch wrote:
As to how it is to work with it, could you provide some feedback for us? Is it something you wrestle with, or does it just work?
I outlined a bunch of issues with it last time. However the biggest issue is that is not being maintained. Maybe this late breaking stuff should be put off till post release of fortress 1.0 and then you can spend as much as you want experimenting without harming our users or making it difficult to migrate.
This late breaking stuff does not use Commons Attribute. It imposes a packaging scheme that is administrated by ANT tasks--much like Phoenix does. I adapted the code from Phoenix's MetaGenerateTask (using QDox) to collect the information.
From the user perspective, all they know is that they need to use the ANT tasks to package the components, and add a couple notes for people who want to generate new components (done in Cocoon).
The docs would clearly state that while the @avalon prefixed javadoc tags would be used by future containers, the @fortress prefixed ones are specific to Fortress.
The important thing is to provide *source* compatibility at this level. Before the Merlin release, I want to provide *package* compatibility.
Right now both Fortress and ECM are sooo different from the rest of the Avalon containers that it is going to impose difficulties in migrating to other containers.
This step brings Fortress a bit closer (though less featured) to the other containers. In essense, once the developer makes the step to Fortress, it becomes *alot* easier to swap out the container and make it work in other environments. The only thing that would need to be done to the components is *possibly* add more meta information. The tags already used would still be present in the future.
Berin:
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The key point is that there is a substantive difference today between Fortress 1.0 and the next step - and the key benefit of what your describing is the potential to establish a minimal initial context that will facilitate change. If we only have the name/shorthand, lifestyle, and service declarations, it's putting the idea into people minds. Looking forward it means evolution instead of revolution.
Two hours ago I was wavering - now I can see the rationalization that makes sense in terms of where we are heading.
I am willing to push Fortress to Phase III of the Excalibur releases so we can straighten out this issue.
+1
Let's make it happen.
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]
