> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > What you add today, I and others have to support tomorrow. (...) > I could vote -1, and then shut up, but I try to turn your > proposal into > something positive, yet getting harassed for it.
So how come you think you have to support my implementation of configurators, just because I'm adding a MutableConfiguration interface? *That* is the problem I have. I proposed a MutableConfiguration interface. I said it ***could*** be used to persist component configurations. I said I ***might*** implement such persistence in a certain way. Now you veto my proposal, not based on the proposal, but because you don't like my *potential* implementation of a *possible* use case. It makes no sense, Niclas. Note that I *never* said in my proposal that I wanted the MutableConfiguration in order to fulfill my use case - I wanted it to plug what I perceived to be a hole in the Avalon architecture - that we had no interface abstraction for DefaultConfiguration. Veto the proposal if you want to, but don't drag in things that aren't part of the proposal and veto the proposal because of them. > > A fork would also completely halt any chance of any of my work > > becoming open source. > > What is this? You are shedding OSS because I am not entirely > in favour of the implementation details of a very funky idea > (I do like the idea of Configurators)... Are you for real? No, I'm giving up on getting my implementation of configurators into Avalon - in the form they are in now, or any form they may be. The reason for this is not that you're not 100% in favor of my proposal, but because I think my proposal has been blocked unreasonably and that you have dealt with it unfairly. /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
