At 02:35 1/3/01 -0800, David Weinrich wrote:
>With this in mind, I don't understand the recurring argument that this
>project is a clear duplication of Avalon. So far this project has defined
>some fairly clear goals and objectives through the work of people coming
>from different jakarta projects, with a road map of how we can get there
>slowly developing from these discussions.
And as I have said repeatedly. The only difference so far is
infrastructure. Once infrastructure is developed I assume all projects will
use it. At which point there will be no difference between Avalon and library.
>What I would suggest is that Avalon focus on remaining that
>framework/core.
I will say it again - in the future the Application server will be split
off. The utility code will go to AUT/whatever and components will go to
library. At which point avalons charter will be "build an alternate
component model". So effectively Avalon was rechartered from "server-side
component repository" to "alternate component model" so another project
could adopt it's original charter.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
