On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 19:02, Stephen McConnell wrote:

> > The JIRA people must have been thinking about this before and during 
> > development, since IMHO
> > Category = Avalon
> > Product = Cornerstone
> > Component = Cornerstone Datasources

So this is basically the aggregated approach listed.  Other components
would include things like Documentation and Test coverage.

> 
> Instead ... I'm thinking along the following lines:
> 
>    Category = Avalon Components
>    Product = Cornerstone Datasources
>    Component = Documentation

I've been burning out a few brain cells myself on this one too. :) 
Seeing the exact list of project helps me understand the situation
better.  So under this setup we have:

Category: Avalon
   avalon-framework
   avalon-extension
   avalon-meta
   avalon-composition
   avalon-activation
   avalon-util
   avalon-plugin
   avalon-repository
   avalon-site         <-- for site-wide documentation.
   Fortress
   Phoenix
   Logkit

Category: Avalon Components
 cornerstone-connection      
 cornerstone-datasources  
 cornerstone-scheduler 
 cornerstone-sockets   
 cornerstone-store      
 cornerstone-threads

Category: Avalon Excalibur (should this be combined with Components?)
 excalibur-compatibility               
 excalibur-configuration       
 excalibur-datasource          
 excalibur-event               
 excalibur-i18n                 
 excalibur-instrument          
 excalibur-lifecycle           
 excalibur-logger              
 excalibur-monitor             
 excalibur-naming              
 excalibur-pool                
 excalibur-sourceresolve       
 excalibur-thread  

I intentionally left Merlin out.  Not sure if it would be a category or
single project.  Under this scheme I could see it going either way.

This seems much more reasonable.  Still a little uneasy about components
coming and going.  Several of these Excalibur components could disappear
this next year, being merged into a cornerstone equivalent, sent to
jakarta-commons, or just deprecated.  This, more than anything else, is
really my concern about such an approach.  And more so with Excalibur
than anything else too.

Maybe we could initially have just one for excalibur and have everything
else as listed above.  At least until we have a better feel for these
component's future.

-- 
 jaaron  <http://jadetower.org>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to