I would like to get us to a place where our repositories make sense, and have a specific purpose. We currently have the following set of repositories:
avalon avalon-logkit avalon-excalibur avalon-components avalon-sandbox avalon-phoenix avalon-site
Of which only two are "product-specific" (LogKit and Phoenix). It is clear what goes in Components, Site, and Sandbox. I would like to clarify what goes in "Avalon".
Currently with Framework and Fortress in there, I would define it as "Framework and Containers".
That would mean that Phoenix technically should go in there, but Phoenix is so big right now, we need to devote some time to it, and see how much we can reuse accross our containers. This should be done as a unified effort, not as a competition type of thing as was done in the past.
Lastly, Excalibur becomes a collection of container utilities. THe thing about Excalibur, is that it should be utilities that should not really be hosted elsewhere.
The current contents of Excalibur are:
compatibility component configuration datasource event extension i18n instrument (*-client, *-manager) lifecycle logger monitor pool sourceresolve store thread xmlutil
Of these datasource, monitor, sourceresolve, store, and xmlutil all should move to avalon-components so that everything is where it belongs. Also, now that Fortress is released, we should deprecate component and pool--and possibly thread.
If we perform all these actions, then Excalibur will become:
compatibility configuration event extension i18n instrument (*-client, *-manager) lifecycle logger
Which is a much smaller set. Again, of that set a couple of the libraries are so central, they can be considered extensions of the core Avalon. Those are the instrument (and friends) and lifecycle. The question remains on how to best incorporate them into our structure. If we move them into the core "avalon" repository then the "avalon" repository becomes the home for containers, framework, and extentions.
Likewise, extension and i18n are generic enough to try and work with Jakarta Commons on it.
That leaves only compatibility, configuration, event, and logger. That seems pretty paltry to justify a whole CVS Repository (as does a seperate one for LogKit).
This is a random thought designed to generate discussion. What are everyone's feelings on the matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
