> -----Original Message----- > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Technical Concerns over AF4.2 > > Sure I would like to ramp up to the new, eventually. > However, I have to manage risk with what I have now. A > sudden change and upheaval to my chassis at this stage would > do more harm than good. I have to make certain baby steps to > build a more adaptable chassis so that I can eventually > support both old and new with the same basic structure. > > There is also the reality that the new is not really formally > introduced yet. It's being advertised, but as I am so often > reminded, there is no Avalon 4 as a whole spec. There is > only Avalon Framework 4 with other parts packaged together > for the luxury vehicle. I appreciate the work being done to > standardize the parts to make up the luxury vehicle, I really > do. The thing is that most of the parts for my beater and > the sports car don't work with the new standards yet. It takes time. > > By not having the product I need sold as a product anymore > (beating this horse to death), you are effectively telling me > that both I and my clients are out in the cold. Hence, my > representation of the demand again. >
No one is telling you that, at least in my understanding of the misunderstanding (!!). :) At least, that's not my position, anyway. As far as I can see, you'll have everything you need to support your current container implementation and your current client base. You'll have AF 4.1.x (binaries and SVN tag to branch from), you'll have javadocs available online for that version of AF for your reference, and you'll have an Avalon community that (1) isn't going to change the interface contract for that api/impl and (2) is available to support bugs/issues for that version. It just won't be called an Avalon *Product* anymore. Doesn't mean you won't find it on the site, and doesn't mean no one wants to support it. But names are changed to reflect the future direction (and I agree that URL redirects are needed to keep all the links working). If/when you have time/desire to move your container and clients forward with the new direction, then there will be an infrastructure to support that as well. As far as I'm concerned, this whole *disenfranchisement* that seems to have happened has been a gross misunderstanding and is unfortunate. I think all of us are a bit trigger happy and subject to knee-jerk reactions. The traditional users/leaders who feel disenfranchised or left in the cold because of change, and the avant-garde who view every question/challenge as an obstacle to the future. Somewhere inside the extremes of trigger-fingers and jerky knees is a way in which the traditional users feel warm&fuzzy and the avante-garde can make the necessary break with the ways of the past. And I know several proposals have been made in this regard, some of which I agree and some of which I disagree. As a member of the avant-garde, I only have two requirements in the solution space: 1. Avalon-Framework not promoted as a Product 2. Not ready to re-version/re-brand Avalon as Avalon-5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
