Stephen McConnell wrote:
Well yes, and I think this is again why we don't want (and would like to no longer be) doing #2, i.e., building against what's in CVS... because we end up using unreleased code and are otherwise not supported.Danny Angus wrote:But your not - your build against and distributing against an unrelease cornerstone package.I agree with Serge, despite our close relationship with avalon I think we *must* work with released software only,1. a James releasse scenario - this is where you referencingrelased jars2. a James build that is based on the current CVS of Avalonbased on Gump
I agree with 1, but not with 2.
I don't think it does James any good to treat the Avalon jar dependencies any different than we would other libraries. I also don't think it does Avalon any good in the long term.
So now it's a question of getting Avalon to make a published release, and then get a proposal from someone to do the upgrade... and as you imply, since we're not building against a release, I don't think you'd get much disagreement (and I hope we've been supportive of your preparatory work to have that happen).
If there is cornerstone code we need that isn't getting released, we can absorb that code into the James package so that we can determine it releasable, and then if Avalon does release it, we can review handing over responsibility for that functionality back to them.
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech
Software - Strategy - Design
http://www.lokitech.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
