> that I believe should be within Avalon. Creation and sharing of components
> was one of the things Avalon was setup to do (admittedly it failed but
> ...8]).
I don't know how to explain this ( I tried quite a few - and I guess some
people were able to understand, after few attempts).
Yes, creation and sharing of components is a goal of Avalon. And how most
people see it, is a project creating components for other to use. (
framework or not, it doesn't matter for this ).
What I'm proposing as Agora is different - the goal of Agora is not to
create components. If the goal would be to create components - I would
agree with you, avalon would be a good place as any other project.
The goals is to convince commiters from various projects to work togheter
on some components of common interest ( "share" the work ). Remember, we
started all this in order to solve a real problem of jakarta - the fact
that we have a big split among projects ( as communities ), and a lot of
duplication that is not justified by any technical arguments.
And I think this can be done by creating a repository where each project
can place components they want to co-develop and co-use. "Agora" itself
will not develop components - and will not have any commiters by itself.
I can't see how you can put this on top of avalon - a project that has an
existing codebase, commiters, etc. ( and more important - a history !!).
> I am not sure why you believe that Avalon would not be neutral. I believe
> the majority of the committers would be happy to help develope JavaBean
> style components etc.
"Neutral" == how other people see it. Avalon has a history and a lot of
"baggage", and so not a good "neutral" place.
Not to mention that so far Avalon is associated in most people mind with a
framework, and a lot of the code was developed in this spirit.
Not to mention that some of the components that we want shared may be
present in avalon - so again, it'll not be a "neutral" place.
> I have no problem components not conforming to the
> Avalon-Framework (as long as they are in another CVS) and I believe the
> others would agree.
As long as they are in another CVS ??? I guess you don't get the point...
> You may say my concerns are not real or I am splitting hairs ;) In the long
> run if all goes well then I say we do split it off into it's own project
> (or even own domain - ala jpan.apache.org). However at the moment there is
> too much overlap with Avalon. I agree that the charter of Avalon should be
> reduced (in time) and library-dev should take over some of it.
Well, then treat agora as a revolution for avalon - you don't have to like
it, and it can overlap as much as it needs.
As for "goes well" - it's very easy to define "success" or "failure" for
agora: if projects and commiters will use it, it's a success ( and the
jars it develops will be included in various jakarta releases). If not -
it doesn't need a CVS :-)
> For the moment how about developing under Avalon and as soon as it is
> obvious that the project can stand on it's own two feet and its goals are
> being met (ie framework agnostic). It is split off to form it's own project
How about developing under a separate tree, and if it stands up we can let
the community vote if they want it merged with avalon, or avalon merged
with agora ?
After all, that should be the solution in any case - I suppose we have
enough informations for an informed vote, and having a separate CVS tree
or using Avalon is a matter of vote.
Costin
