Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin:
I read though your reply a couple of time and totally failed to locate anything that supported you claim that Merlin is divergent. About the only concrete statement was the following - and that left me somewhat confused ...
You get very defensive everytime I mention Merlin in light of Phoenix
and Fortress. What's the deal?
I think your assertions on thread have been missleading.
Last time I checked we were on the same
team.
We are on the same team Berin.
Fortress and Phoenix share a subset of meta-info descriptors
What is the subset of meta-info that Fortress and Phoenix share? It is my impression that Fortress and Phoenix have take divergent paths (I'm inspired by your own creative application of this word). Fortress keys of a @avalon.component whereas Phoenix keys of @phoenix.component for one variant of its meta-model and @phoenix.block for what it calls legacy support for the <blockinfo> style (neither of which have anything to do with Fortress or Merlin). If we dig into the actual descriptors the differences between Fortress and Phoenix are even more distinct and container specific relative to anything in Merlin. Given that the meta-info package we are separating out from Merlin includes fully support for the legacy Phoenix model, along with support for the declaration of Fortress context assumptions, and provides complete support for the Avalon context spec. - it would be really helpful if you could clarify for me what it is that prompts you to suggest that Merlin is divergent?
First:
Do not make statements that cast doubt on the intelligence of your peers.
I'm not casting doubt on your intelligence - I'm actually complementing you on your creativity.
This does not help your position, but rather hurts it. (I am referring to
your parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the above paragraph).
Second:
AMTAGS is in use with both Fortress and Phoenix. Because Phoenix was our first forray into the world of meta-info and context entries, it is our de facto standard.
Please take a closer look at what I said above and the prior discussions concerning AMTAGS. I also suggest you take a closer look at Phoenix, tag usage and meta-model before presenting the Phoenix/Fortress commonality as a case supporting your position. Also, it would be perhaps wise if we stay away from assertions such as "first" == "de facto standard". Standards are built either through consensus or convergence based on needs. Consensus is a result of collaboration whereas convergence is more typically a result of adoption in order to gain some tangible benefit. In the case of AMTAGS it is neither - it is simply a starting point in the process of potentially establishing a standard.
If the standard needs to be changed, we need to identify what and how.
As to how Merlin is divergent (hopefully you will get it this time):
* All your context entries use the full URN notation, which makes Merlin
the only container to support this styling.
How is this divergent? It actually reflects discussions on this list. It addresses on of the interoperability stumbling points that constantly reappears - namely assumptions by containers about context. The usage of URN style naming in no way inhibits the application of Merlin nor forces any constraint on component authors. I simply do not see how this is any shape of form supports you divergence theory.
* Merlin suggests that there is much more in the avalon namespace than anyone has agreed to. AMTAGS is our current standard--it needs to be adjusted, but it is what we have. Merlin does not comply.
This has already been addressed under another thread. Merlin does not comply for some very good reason. The AMTAGS proposal as it stands today is woefully insufficient - clearly insufficient to meet Merlin needs - and keep in mind that Merlin "needs" translate directly to component management without container lock-in. Beyond that, you are aware of the actions I've been taking to address AMTAGS and arrive at something workable. If this is the source of divergence that your so keen on pressing home - then I suggest to that there are perhaps better and more constructive approaches to raising this.
Can I should assume that your statement concerning "divergence" was perhaps just a touch off the mark? Perhaps you meant to say "open", "adaptive", "encompassing", or dare I say "all-embarrassing"?
Steve, this last comment is unnecessary. Please refrain from such comments
as they do not help.
Berin - this entire thread is unnecessary!
;-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
