> >Beeing "project-neutral" is important to create what we need.
>
> This would be the only sticking point I see. It is unfortunate that other
> projects are seen as "competitors" rather than "companions" but I guess
> until this is "fixed" it could be an issue. However instead of starting
> again I would prefer that we try to start fixing things now.
Peter,
Beeing project-neutral is very important.
We shouldn't treat the components developed in avalon in a special
way - the fact is that _all_ jakarta projects are creating server-side
components.
Arguing that this should be part of avalon because it overlaps with
it's goal is wrong - the library will overlap with almost all
jakarta projects. It overlaps with jakarta-tools ( which also overlaps
with avalon ), it overlaps with alexandria. All jakarta
projects are creating some forms of server-side compoents
( including tomcat ).
In the end, what matters is what we gain and loose by calling it Avalon.
I think we loose much more than we gain. The only thing we might
gain is avoiding confusion - but that shouldn't be the driving
argument, in any case. ( and there is alreay enough confusion
surrounding avalon ).
BTW, the question is not what would be better for avalon, but
what would be better for this project and jakarta.
Another big problem ( and I'm very strong about it ) is that
by calling it avalon we'll have to deal with a way to
position the existing avalon code - since it shouldn't be
in any way "favorised" versus code from other projects.
Costin
