Yep - lots of steerage - bugger all contribution.
But it kind of makes sense. If you go back and look at the context we wanted to say (in fact we were desperate to say) "yes - we are united" and we plastered over our differences (and for good reasons). Six months down the track and the plaster is falling off. Instead of doing things because we are trying to hold together a picture, we can actually talk about doing things because we want to.
Stephen.
.. where "we" is simply my perception of "us", "then" - if you known what I mean ...
At some risk, I'd like to reopen this then. Proposal :
1) We strive for a lowest common denominator (LCD) approach with embracing of multiple value-added implementation, which may end up divergent without that being considered a failure. Thus A-F's Java interfaces are our point of unification. There is no single container. There is no unified assembly or configuration meta info specification at the application level. XML and other.
2) We drop a unified component-level meta info dependancy and configuration design. XML and other.
This has been discussed to the tune of a million characters. Let us just see which of the two above committers have moved on (or not).
Regards,
- Paul
-- http://www.thoughtworks.com -> The art of heavy lifting. Home for many Agile practicing, Open Source activists...
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
