On Friday 05 March 2004 05:17, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Avalon needs a future
Pronto! > It means that you should trim the fat and work from there. Agree. "We have landed on the beach, burnt the ship. Move forward." > This is the first step of simplification. Tell me if I am wrong if that > does not simplify the tool requirements. if "that" == "trimming fat" then Agree if "that" == "any simplification" then Not Agree. > In the corner of meta-data/meta-info/ meta-whatever-you-want-to-call-it I have the feeling that this is already to far away a concern at this point to talk about implementation features, when Vision, Mission and Purpose is not solidly established. > Sure you can define the set of annotations for > Avalon 5 and make that part of the framework. I would really prefer it if > you did. You still have a well defined set of contracts, but you also have > some room to expand to support different tools. I read in this "Framework" as a variant of "AF4", which IMHO is an utterly incomplete Component Contract (proof? >=4 incompatible containers). If Avalon is not stepping up the ambition to be Component Oriented, and keep being "Framework Oriented", then I think we don't have a Purpose, definately not a Vision. Cheers Niclas -- +---------//-------------------+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +------//----------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
