Re: Excalibur/Cornerstone/James woes

[Aaron Knauf]

Yeah, it doesn't help that the Avalon APIs aren't yet stable. This is a sign of the current lack of maturity in the Avalon codebase. When you base your application on such a raw framework, you buy into this kind of trouble. It seems to me, however, that the Avalon guys might be willing to work on stabilizing their interfaces. They are going to find it tough going trying to stabilize without close support and feedback from their user community, though. (That's us!)

Perhaps a better approach to this might be to kick off an experimental james branch where we can do the required refactoring without worrying too much about breaking things and hindering current james development? Or, if you think that they might have a more stable API in a few months, maybe the sync up should wait for james v4?

At the end of the day, what is the point of using Avalon at all if we are going to be stuck with an obsolete version forever? The benefits of not having to re-invent the wheel begin to pale very rapidly when you can feel every bump in the road through the steel rims! How did people ever get by without steel-belted radials and double wish-bone suspension!

:-)

Cheers

ADK


Danny Angus wrote:

I think that JAMES should make a habit of upgrading to every new stable avalon release. This requires that Avalon does its releases reasonably frequently. It also assumes that avalon releases are not made every day - we might have to skip a few if that happens.

It also compels us to spend a lot of time refactoring james to take account of revolutionary changes forced on us by Avalon.

d.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>