> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Simons
>
> oohhh! Sounds interesting. Probably no chance at some of that
> becoming open source, is there?
Well:
1. Some of it (the MutableConfiguration interface) *is* becoming
open source, if I can get the vote through.
2. As for the rest, it is a function of:
a. How much sense it makes to make a package of it. Is the code
re-usable enough to be of use, or should I just type up how
it is architected and leave it up to implementers to use the
pattern I've established?
b. The maturity of the architecture - since releasing it will
result in it being harder to change (must seek consensus etc.)
there's no point in releasing something I may have to change
quickly or fork. I think we've all seen the "guy who committed
a project to an OSS dependency and will lose his job unless
the *%&#! Open Source developers implement the feature he wants
(but failed to check for before committing his project and
reputation and job to the OSS project) right *#%&! NOW!". I
don't intend to be one.
c. Can it be separated/packaged? I have tried using
commons-attributes
in the project and it looks good so far, but will Avalon accept a
dependency on c-a?
d. Priorities - releasing it will take some time. Not much time,
but some.
The above can be summed up in: Does it make business sense to release
this code?
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
