Peter Donald wrote:
> Not necessarily ;) Avalon is a name with many faces. We are trying to
> separate out each of these at the moment but we are still no there. I
> posted a list of 5 things I though Avalon was on general@jakarta (under
> subject "What is Avalon?"). I was also mailed off list with two other
> things that Avalon could be interpreted as being - so I guess when you say
> "Avalon" you have to qualify it which particular component ;)
Peter Donald wrote:
> Avalon is;
> 1. A repository of general utility code
> 2. A repository of patterns and framework code
> 3. A set of general utility code based on (2)
> 4. A micro kernel for running services
> 5. A set of services that are orientated towards server environments
Peter Donald wrote:
> 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.
And in the spirit of cooperation ;-) I'd suggest that since Avalon has
so much on its plate already, why not try and offload (1) to the
Commons, and concentrate more fully on (2) through (5)+.
Peter Donald wrote:
> But Avalon was intended to be a shared repository of server-side components
> - it has no other purpose ;) All the other projects create server-side
> components as a side effect of developing another product. Avalons product
> is the components.
Even with the reorganization, I think the perception is going to be that
Avalon is a framework product that also offers up some general utility
code, the same way Struts and Turbine do.
The difference between Avalon and the Commons is that Avalon is trying
to put the pieces together, and the Commons is really offering pieces,
only pieces, and nothing but pieces. BYOP - bring your own puzzle ;-)
-T.
