On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:48:12 -0400, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if you like your bike red and I like my bike black, we > cannot have the same bike.
True. The bane of reusability is usually that you have two different scenarios that only differ in a minor detail - but that detail happens to be spread throughout the source code. But remember this: + We all use the same language (Java) + We run with the same standard libraries So reusability *isn't* a myth. Its just that you can't reuse everything. So Stefano, how much can be reused? What, in your opinion, can be salvaged from Avalon? Do we just flush everything down the drain? Or keep some things? > at the end, the one with most social/political > pressure imposes its views. That is my experience too. > Avalon has failed. Depends on definition of failure. In the objective "provide a unified server framework", yes. But there are some useful code in Avalon (if I could keep just one set of classes, I'd keep the o.a.a.f.configuration package), and I think it has helped introduce IoC and all that for many people (myself being one of them). So we didn't reach architecture nirvana, but we got somewhere. So when you say "move on, each one of us on their own path", it can't mean "dump every piece of Avalon code in your system and just move on", but something else. What? /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
