Leo, Thank you for the summary. More comments below:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > background > ---------- > our initial plan was simple: > > 1 - move utility code inside excalibur out to commons > 2 - move container code inside excalibur to the main avalon cvs > 3 - move components inside excalibur to the components cvs Sounds good. > Reasons for that plan were simple as well: our organisation is in a > rather permanent structural mess, and flux. That led to various problems > in the past. I'll agree with the structural mess part, too. I'm hoping to help fix that. Part of my problem is I don't want to overstep my bounds and start re-organizing or refactoring things without a solid plan that (most) everyone agrees on. <plug type="JIRA"> Yet another reason why I think issue tracking and roadmaps would help. </plug> > now what? > --------- > You tell me. Whatever needs to happen, its boring work :/. The first > step seems getting our website, which is just as structurally in a mess > (only periodically fixed), up-to-date with information about what > components we have and the essentials surrounding those components. Yes, it can be boring work -- but it _really_ needs done. Particularly the web site. So how about I start working on that and once the site is more presentable, I'll start bugging people about excalibur and cornerstone re-organization again. :) > > [package structure]? > > I would recommend against anything new. It will just add to confusion. I > would suggest > > org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.{blah} (api and/or spi) > org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.{blah}.impl (implementation) > > or > > org.apache.excalibur.{blah} > org.apache.excalibur.{blah}.impl I brought this up because the new exporter component I put together for Merlin is a much needed feature (easy JNDI exporting of components. I at least wanted something in place. I'll refactor it to the cornerstone package so as to maintain some consistency. > Sorry to be so cynical, but I really think we should focus on getting > our 'older' stuff into the same quality range as recent releases like > merlin before focussing on 'new'. That, or just accept many components > are 'stale' and treat them as such. Which has other downsides. > > cheers! > > - Leo I don't think you're being cynical. More like realistic. ;) J. Aaron Farr SONY ELECTRONICS DDP-CIM (724) 696-7653 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
