> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sorry mate - your too late. AF 4.2 is out the door. Avalon is moving on. > There is nothing to resolve amicably because nobody (except Leo) has > raised a technical issue. And Leo's question is being drowned out in > layers of non-technical rubbish. This list is about technical things > and if someone cannot put together a reasonable technical argument then > just let it drop. It's not our problem.
Then you won't mind if I delete the current site and re-instate the old site until we have a firm consensus on the versioning and framework documentation, right? I mean, it isn't a "technical" matter, right? Stephen, Last time, last warning: drop the technical vs non-technical argument. The *real* concerns here, as I understand them are: 1. Drop of Avalon Framework as a "product" 2. Lack of Framework 4.1 documentation or any "framework" documentation at all (the only related docs are labeled under "component specification") 3. Concern and confusion about the constructor injection feature moving from a Merlin-specific enhancement to a general Avalon framework feature. 4. General concern and confusion about the role of the traditional framework library in Avalon's future. There have been a number of solutions proposed: 1. Re-introduction of prior Avalon Framework documentation 2. If constructor injection is to be part of the general Avalon framework, we should consider a major version jump to Avalon 5.0 out of respect for the various Avalon related projects. Now, Stephen, would you please help everyone understand your concerns with these proposals? Please do not just dismiss them as "political" and thus not worth your time or attention. J. Aaron Farr SONY ELECTRONICS STP SYSTEMS (724) 696-7653 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
