Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2003 08:28, Stephen McConnell wrote:
My own opinion is that we need a new CVS repository - avalon-playground.
What's the difference between avalon-playground and avalon-sandbox - simple - things in playground are not destined for Avalon - its simply an infrastructure to support and enable people who want to do new things. What is the exit criteria for playground content? Its the development of the individuals who come to play.
I.e. Avalonia - the center for component developer development.
IIUYC, avalon-playground would be more open to developers who are not full Avalon comitters, and only access to that repo? And that the entry-level for participation here would be much lower?
Absolutely YES.
I'm thinking of an entry level which is basically someone making a request within which they assert tat the recognise the rules. That it - period.k Its not about code repository - its about individual development, learning, experience, technology transfer - whaterver you want to call it. It not about creating a home for a component.
I doubt that will go through the ASF upper ranks. If there are legalities of copying an LGPL library to ASF infrastructue, I believe the above to be hard to get through.
I disagree - the board listens to the PMCs - the PMC are represented by a Chair - the Chair expressed the interests and concerns of the PMC - the PMC is here to resolve the issues and concerns of the community. Things like LGPL are real concerns - but its a managable concern - if the licensing conditions for a particular project cannot be resolved it just means extra overhead for the the end-users - but in the process the developer in the plaground gets to learn about legal implications of open source development (along with all those other things like "what is a component", "IOC", "SOC", community, process, etc.).
If you manage, I think Leo and I would agree it would be good, but in absence of such break-through, do you still maintain that Avalon components can ONLY be hosted at avalon.apache.org?
Yes.
There is more to the license than a convinience factor.
IMHO, the recent "success" (or at least hype) around Pico is directly related to "component availability" (more or less anything can be refactored in minutes).
I am probably going to regrat saying this but - honestly - it is largely hype. What is nice about Pico is the ability to fudge the boundary between container space and component space. What is does is say that it is drop dead easy for any component to behave as a container. The problem is that the Pico model is like 5-8% or the real issue - it just one aspect of a rather complex concern.
You may envision dozens of high-quality components. I envision thousands of various quality (comformant or not to the "single contract") components, where the high-quality ones are at Apache infrastructure, and the others are "easy to find" somewhere else.
Actually, I'm not too corcerned about the quality aspect - I figure we can automate avaluation of these things. What I do see is components within Apache juristiction having a loger life, greater attention to detail, a broader community, and at the end of the day - representing a greater value proposition to end users.
Stephen.
Niclas
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
