I've reordered some bits a little. Attempt at SOC.
Tech stuff ----------
This is the underlying problem to lack of specification, which I have been jumping up and down over before, but haven't had time to really dig into.
IMNSHO it is a good idea to dig into things before making big changes.
If I write a Servlet against ver 2.3 of the spec, it won't run in Servelet 2.2 containers. Simple as that, and this is no different.
My point is that it /is/ different (not that I always approve of the way the JCP manages changes to their specs). See my other reply. The servlet spec didn't introduce reflection-based magic into what used to be a purely interface-based contract.
Furthermore, it requires a very high degree of self-discipline to be able to write cross-container compatible components,
You know, until now, I'd been happily doing so without problems. And I would say I don't have that high a degree of self-discipline :-D
Not-so-techy stuff ------------------
Closer to home is what is happening in Excalibur TLP, many things are axed breaking compatibility for 'satellite' projects
Deprecation is not the same as breaking compatibility. In fact, since there's no new release of the things being deprecated (I really don't like "axed" as a term), compatibility can't be broken!
Deprecating avalon-framework alltogether would be different from changing it. I have no problems with deprecating avalon-framework.
I haven't seen Excalibur Chair vetoed any of those changes.
Chairs don't veto anything. The only people who veto things are committers. If you ever see a chair exercise authority and sidestep "normal procedure", you can be sure the issue is much more serious than a topic that's the recipient of a veto.
which the 'pico camp' is arguing so strongly against funny enough
Besides there being no 'pico camp' (just pragmatic people who write lots of tests), I haven't seen the pico project argue strongly against anything. I do agree that some of the guys who hang around there can be pretty funny ;)
Regarding the 'discuss the changes' more thoroughly; We all know where that will end up.
Are you saying what I think you are you saying? "We are not going to discuss these big changes with you (or other people that happen to disagree) that impact your (their) work because <nasty stuff> will happen?"
Are you serious?
(...)
I'm not appreciating the direction this is going at all.
- LSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
