Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > However in the meantime if there is any Turbine committers who want > > to have access to any avalon repos then just say the word and we can > > try and work something out. > > :-D Cool! +1
I would like access to where ever Avalon currently stores its components and blocks. I'm interested in porting any Fulcrum Services which John and Jason haven't done yet (that I use) over to the Avalon APIs. As noted in Nicola's "How Avalon may change Turbine" email a while back, some of our (specifically, web-centric) components may be more appropriately stored in Turbine repos, but other services (like our XML-RPC service) would make make a great block. John, Jason: will you guys respond with a list of Fulcrum services which you've already ported? My apologies if this repeats information you've already posted, but I'm (of course) interested in the most recent information. > Now, what should be best: > 1) let them keep it and reference it > 2) accept it in Avalon > 3) put it in Commons > > I'd go for 1 for now, what do others think? I think that 1 may be the way to go across the board. Using Fulcrum as an example, a lot of our service code is just wrappers around Jakarta Commons components (which themselves have no dependency upon Fulcrum). Mixing Avalon-dependent code into the Apache Commons seems like it makes the most sense when that code can run without Avalon (like the case for some of the Jakarta Commons components wrapped with Fulcrum services). Just my $0.02. -- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
