Farr, Aaron wrote:
Hello.
Okay, so all of cornerstone is in avalon-components. What about excalibur?
Is that going to eventually be moved into avalon-components or are we going
to keep the two repositories separate?
There are some things in Excalibur that are simply not components. For example, i18n and confiuration are pure utilities. If think these rightly belong under Excalibur and that Excalibiur should remain for this purpose.
Moreover, for components, we have the following package structures:
org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.blocks org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services org.apache.avalon.excalibur org.apache.excalibur
For _new_ components, what should we use? Excalibur? Cornerstone?
Something different like
org.apache.avalon.components
or
org.apache.avalon.services
Just thinking ..... is there any reason why we don't simply stick with "Cornerstone" and the cornerstone package name? This would lead to just more focus on what we have as opposed to changing things around. Excalibur for our utility code; Cornerstone as the avalon component suite; and Avalon is the framework and containment solution.
Perhaps we should have a set of guidelines for component writers?
I agree.
Steve.
J. Aaron Farr SONY ELECTRONICS DDP-CIM (724) 696-7653
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
