> -----Original Message----- > From: peter royal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:47 PM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] End the drama > > On Jul 13, 2004, at 4:32 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: > > Sorry - this does not make sense. > > > > Avalon Framework is not legacy, Components are not legacy. > > Wait, which is it? > > Is A-F a Product or not? If it is no longer a Product, A-F as > a Product is legacy.
Mainly don't like the word legacy. And while Avaloners that have been around awhile may be able to distinguish between Framework as Product and Framework as Legacy Product, new users coming to the site might just see Framework tagged as legacy and be confused. Let's find a different way to position Framework as part of the overall Avalon product going forward, while preserving it's distinction as central player in the traditional IOC domain. > 3/4 of my solution was documentation-based (site), and one > was technical (bumping version for perception purposes). Are > you not willing to bump to v5 at this time to help move past > this issue? Version bumping for the sake of marketing has always annoyed me. I frown upon it when software vendors do it, and I'd like to find a amicable solution that doesn't result in a marketing-driven version bump. That being said, I want to move past this issue, and as a last resort would consider dropping my veto. Fair enough? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
