On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 21:11, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > >Why not an Avalon Library for reusable Avalon Components? > > > > +1 > > This is what I think Cornerstone could be (once the breakout into > manageable units is completed). > > Cheers, Steve.
I'm just a lowly user, so I may be out of place joining this conversation, but my impression has always been: Excalibur = general (smaller) components (container agnostic) Cornerstone = Reusable Phoenix blocks Apps = full-blown standalone applications (usually based on Phoenix) So I always thought Excalibur sorta was the "Avalon Library". I agree though that it would be nice if there was more clarification on where Avalon-related projects belong. I've started putting together an SF project of my own for more "generic" Avalon components and I know others have mentioned doing the same. This trend concerns me a little since it scatters the developer community and makes finding all these components and projects harder. Perhaps an Avalon Library would help, even if the first step is to host it on SF or in the sandbox before it ends up in the Library. Point is, one of the advantages of the Avalon framework is re-usability of components. It seems like there should be a better mechanism to achieve this. -- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
