On Friday 07 November 2003 10:31, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >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.
Ok, make it happen and I'm all game. <snip content="how to make it happen and more" /> > >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. If I re-phrase the question, as I now realize that it is not unambigous; Do you still maintain that Avalon-compatible components can ONLY be hosted at avalon.apache.org? And that would then be in the dozens range, since we can't maintain much more? > 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. I think your interpretation of what is nice may not be what other think is "nice" about Pico. To me and a couple of my friends, it is "A LOT of components exists already!!". The container is secondary, and perhaps a lot of the Pico enthusiast will burn themselves later. That is technological issue. My point is, and will remain, "A container without components is useless.", no matter how good it is. > 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. You almost sound like a MS marketing guy; "People only need great applications from this great company." ;o) I happen to believe otherwise. A successful COP project allows anyone to expose a component easily, and for others to find equally easily. Freshmeat.net comes to mind... Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
