Re: [GUMP] Any James developers here?
Jon Stevens wrote: on 2/14/01 2:38 PM, "Federico Barbieri" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, so can we agree on this: /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-foo /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-bar /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-whatever /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-peter /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-federico /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-yourmother ? You're missing my point... org.apache.avalon and the kernel and blocks implementation are two different project. Very different. The avalon package's goal is to create a set of design patterns, contracts and interfaces to enforce good software design, runtime code reusing, IOC, SOC, etc. Phoenix is an intergation framework. Cornerstone is a set of default services for Phoenix. avalon is way much closer in the way it should be developed, goals and needs to the jakarta-util project rather than Phoenix. I whould strongly agree to have that code into the util project. Many avalon patterns are used by Phoenix, James, Cocoon and similar concepts are in Turbine too. So it should be in a common project/repository, not duplicated in each project. So what about merging avalon into the jakarta util and let Phoenix and Cornerstone live together in a separate CVS? Fede And you are missing my point. I don't care how many different CVS trees there are. Just prefix them with "jakarta-avalon" if it is at all Avalon related. If it is related to another project that you would like to create, then you need to propose that as another project, not just another CVS tree. -jon That's fine with me. so let's ge for jakarta-avalon jakarta-avalon-phoenix jakarta-avalon-cornerstone Is it ok with everybody? Fede - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GUMP] Any James developers here?
Jon Stevens wrote: on 2/12/01 1:33 PM, "Federico Barbieri" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's exactly why I want to split java.apache.avalon into three CVS! API (design patterns, interfaces, contracts etc. have a very different lifecycle from the framework implementation and it's critical to the health of projects depending on those API to have two development pipeline separated. Most of the org.apache.avalon package is quite stable... it's been stable for more than one year! What keeps changing is the kernel implementation (Phoenix) on wich dependencies are weeker. Ok, so can we agree on this: /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-foo /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-bar /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-whatever /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-peter /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-federico /home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-yourmother ? You're missing my point... org.apache.avalon and the kernel and blocks implementation are two different project. Very different. The avalon package's goal is to create a set of design patterns, contracts and interfaces to enforce good software design, runtime code reusing, IOC, SOC, etc. Phoenix is an intergation framework. Cornerstone is a set of default services for Phoenix. avalon is way much closer in the way it should be developed, goals and needs to the jakarta-util project rather than Phoenix. I whould strongly agree to have that code into the util project. Many avalon patterns are used by Phoenix, James, Cocoon and similar concepts are in Turbine too. So it should be in a common project/repository, not duplicated in each project. So what about merging avalon into the jakarta util and let Phoenix and Cornerstone live together in a separate CVS? Fede -jon -- If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take your pain to new levels. --Anonymous http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/ http://java.apache.org/turbine/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GUMP] Any James developers here?
Sam Ruby wrote: It looks like Avalon has been steadily deprecating interfaces that James has been depending on. Now James is broken. http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2001-02-11/james.html Who wants to volunteer to look into it? Standard reason: if one wants to deploy a server solution involving multiple Apache Jakarta subprojects, each of which depend on different point in time snapshots of Avalon, which version of the avalonapi.jar should one put into the classpath first? - Sam Ruby That's exactly why I want to split java.apache.avalon into three CVS! API (design patterns, interfaces, contracts etc. have a very different lifecycle from the framework implementation and it's critical to the health of projects depending on those API to have two development pipeline separated. Most of the org.apache.avalon package is quite stable... it's been stable for more than one year! What keeps changing is the kernel implementation (Phoenix) on wich dependencies are weeker. P.S. Kudos to the Avalon team for deprecating interfaces. Federico - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
