> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > is your use case really desirable to promote as > the way to go. Right now, I don't feel like it is.
Niclas, whether my use case is the way to go or not is *not relevant*. I didn't ask you to validate and endorse the design of my use case, I asked you to endorse my design of an interface abstraction of DefaultConfiguration. What is relevant is whether the MutableConfiguration interface makes sense - not if everything I intend to do with it does. Yes, we can have a ComponentConfigurator, but seriously, why do I have to solve the problems of: + Custom GUI configuration of components + Component configuration persistence when ***neither are part of the proposal***, and both are "well, you can use MutableConfiguration for this, for example..."? I proposed MutableConfiguration, with a rationale that was ***separate from any use case***. Then you asked me for a use case. I gave it, as well as I could. Now you turn around and say that I have to evolve the use case into something industrial-strength and include it in the proposal before you'll consider MutableConfiguration. You have also managed to drag into this the issue of how voting is done at Avalon. Niclas, you're seriously changing the equation for me. I had always thought that it was easier to get things into framework than to fork framework. Your insistence on my expanding the proposal beyond any reasonable scope has made the proposal route take about one and a half weeks and counting, while a fork would take about 1.5 minutes, and the results would be equivalent. A fork would also completely halt any chance of any of my work becoming open source. /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
