> To sum up, I believe that "Avalon" should be known as a family of > specifications. NOT "One specification to rule the all," but many > specifications with versions and test cases. Specifications will have > flaws. They will need to be updated/amended/discarded, but as long as they > have test-cases and reasonable versioning, compatibility can be within an > implementers grasp. I do not think that Avalon should include a single > Model Driven Architecture that all container implementations must follow, > however. We just aren't there yet.
To clarify, my definition of "specification" includes API docs, test cases, possibly DTDs or XML Schemas, but NOT lengthy formal design specs. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
