I think we can formally agree to disagree before this becomes a never
ending argument. I don't think either of us will be convinced.
David
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Peter Donald wrote:
> At 05:50 1/3/01 -0800, David Weinrich wrote:
> >There are many more differences, the key one is the idea that this is
> >already a 'shared' environment that people from many different jakarta
> >projects have helped define.
>
> As Avalon is supposed to be.
>
> >When and where did Avalon change it's charter? Was it voted on? So far the
> >only source I have telling me that 'Avalon is a set of standalone
> >components' is yourself, with *all* of the information on the website
> >pointing to 'Avalon is a framework for building servers in java'. Please
> >give me some information to help me understand what avalon is, a vote, a
> >document that clearly states this mysterious new charter, anything.
>
> well if you look at original proposals they used the word "framework" to be
> set of components. It was later that it evolved to a "framework" in
> classical sense. As I am the main contributor to Avalon at the moment when
> I say we are moving back to our original charter I would think you could
> believe that.
>
> >I really have strong reservations with throwing more viewpoints and
> >people on a project that has 'rechartered' itself in a way that the old
> >product it is known for becomes something else and the new product/goal
> >retains the same name. Avalon looks like a really cool project ( at least
> >the Avalon I understand it to be ), why make things more confusing for the
> >people who are trying to build solutions on it?
>
> I don't know what the history is behind Avalon - and to be honest I don't
> really care. I came to it about 6 months ago and since then all my efforts
> have been to move it to its original mission. Luckily someone else just
> picked up on the vibe and is doing the same (Yay Fede!).
>
> Perhaps you should read the call to vote again and look at point 1 + 6.
> Also ask yourself why the document separates the terms "shared code and the
> framework design". Now go look at my proposal of a few days of flattening
> CVS karma across all projects. Go back a bit further and look on ant-dev at
> my reactions to CJAN. I have also been very vocal on standards and GUMP -
> this scattered across all lists (probably most common on ant-dev).
>
> So again your point becomes - Avalon is NIH hence we should start again -
> or have I missed something. (Oh and please stop throwing up the straw man
> arguements - that is so lame).
>
>
> 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 |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>
>
