Charles Benett wrote:
> "Stanley,Michael P." wrote:
>
>> I have become very interested in your product, more so I am interested
>> in helping with some development.
>
>
> Ace!
>
>> I was planning on writing a decent
>> listserve mailet.
>
>
> You know there is one included? Feel free to improve it.
We'll I will be using that as a starting point but I feel it really
isn't a suitable alternative for other more mature mailling list engines
(i.e. Mailman). I don't like using mailman and think that a good
listserve and listserve manager is something the java oss community is
missing. I would love to fill this gap. Hey, but its all about time ;-)
>
>> I've been looking through the code of the last
>> release and am finding it hard to follow. I look at the head of the cvs
>> and I see significant changes and it appears you've started a push to
>> the new Avalon Framework. My questions all pretty much relate to that
>> push. How far along is the complete switch?
>
>
> The code in cvs uses one of the beta releases of Avalon 4.0 and the
> contemporaneous Phoenix and Cornerstone.
> In other words the switch is conplete. Although we may not be using all
> the features of Avalon.
Yeah, I finally found some stuff on it. Some of it was right in front
of my face (like cvs tag names) and other stuff was a little harder to
come by (barried in the architecture document).
>> What version of Avalon was
>> used in the latest release? Can I get the source to the Avalon that was
>> used in that release (I'm having a real hard time finding it through
>> conventional CVS use, Avalon has changed a lot). What is the current
>> roadmap planned for James? Should I begin my development with the
>> stable release or should I start by using the <blank>?
>
>
> I would strongly encourage you to work from cvs.
> I've just posted instructions on getting avalon code behind the
> (December) last release.
I downloaded both the head of the cvs and the tag with-Avalon-4.0.02b
(or something like that). Which one should I be using? The tagged one
seems a little bit more cleaned up than the head. How do they compare
on stability?
>
>> Is there any
>> work being done on the readability of your code namely the includes.
>> Let me explain. In all your files you include entire packages with
>> wildcards. When coming across a method or Class it is hard to find the
>> javadoc/source to grasp an idea of what is fully going on, because the
>> realms are so large. I suggest that includes should avoid wildcards and
>> try to include only what is actually used in the particular file. This
>> will make browsing the source much less painful.
>
>
> I agree. As we alter the code we should unglob the imports. I thought
> most of this had been done.
It might be in the new stuff. Haven't had a chance to look through it
yet, but it definitely wasn't in the 1.2.1 release.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
