Berin:
How about this - Excalibur but together the specification of the Excalibur Component Model. In doing this you can reference all of the content you want from Avalon (including framework docs etc.). You can include the information concerning ECM semantics - etc. At the end of the process you have your product.
Stephen.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Bennett, Timothy (JIS/Applications) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:59 PM
To: Avalon Developers List
Subject: RE: Technical Concerns over AF4.2
here's how we envision its use in the new Avalon
Who is "we"? If you are intending to drop compatibility with other Avalon products such as Excalibur, etc., I suggest that we move Frameworks from the stewardship of Avalon to Excalibur.
Who's said anything about any intention to drop compatibility with anyone?
Frameworks and specifications mature. If you want to take advantage of NIO,
you move your application to JRE 1.4. If you don't need it/want it because
you don't have time/desire to assume the *risk*, you stay compatible with
JRE 1.3. I fail to see how the evolution of the Avalon framework and
specification is any different?
And we are back to the problem of knowing what we are agreeing to.
There is no official overall Avalon X as a unified spec--this is a gross oversight--and yet there is no listing of all the Avalon Products that make up this "unified spec".
Because of this, I have repeatedly asked that there be an official Avalon X, and that Avalon framework be provided for those who just need that part. I am in favor of an Avalon X--but it seems as if the rest of Avalon has mixed feelings about it.
One one hand, I am told that I should use the Avalon runtime platform, with no idea what that really and practically means. On the other hand I am told that there is no official Avalon X and there is only Avalon Framework 4.2 and other products--none of which are advertised on the site.
So, I humbly ask you to get the story straight. Is there really an official Avalon X with a whole working spec or is that only marketing hype? I can't really tell. Lastly, if there is no official Avalon X where are all the products that make it up? They are nowhere to be found.
This is very confusing to me (please withold any smart alec comments). I asked for the line in the sand so that I know what is what. Right now, there is Merlin. That is the product. Not the spec, the container. So in essence the spec is defined as Merlin in all practical reality--despite the rhetoric contrariwise.
If I agree to support Avalon Framework 4.x and 4.2 adds a new contract I am not aware of, then we have a problem--because I don't know about the new contract. So if I've already committed myself to supporting framework 4.2, I have some rework to do. The ones that don't change the code are more of a gotcha because there is no way to easily tell from the distribution what has changed and what is promised.
--
|---------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org | |---------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
