Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Niclas, assuming the s-a-p provides the same simplicity of use. merlin as it exists today is not in that category. This is brought up on a weekly basis, but I wonder how much is FUD and how much are facts. Could someone please provide some facts about this? (Use-case of what is so simple in Fortress, and let the Merlin camp show the direct equivalent.) To me this just makes even more obvious that there is never going to be *THE* container. The faster we recognize that fact, the quicker we can refine to get the ideal core interfaces that'll let us share components. Lets not get back to the discussion of which container is better, folks have different needs, let them choose the container they want to use. Blissful peace! Shash - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Apr 10, 2004, at 10:46 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Sunday 11 April 2004 07:24, peter royal wrote: assuming the s-a-p provides the same simplicity of use. merlin as it exists today is not in that category. This is brought up on a weekly basis, but I wonder how much is FUD and how much are facts. Could someone please provide some facts about this? (Use-case of what is so simple in Fortress, and let the Merlin camp show the direct equivalent.) * The terminology used in Merlin is very obtuse. I raised this problem over a year ago but it fell upon deaf ears. * Use of the Repository stuff * Requiring meta tags on components. (Fortress does *NOT* require them) * Size of codebase (the 'core' of Merlin may be smaller now, but it appears that there are a large number of required libraries..) -pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Sunday 11 April 2004 14:40, Leif Mortenson wrote: > If the various > containers are not going to be forward compatible then it kind of > trashes the whole > reason for having a "standard" API like framework. The interesting aspect of your assessment is that, "If the components doesn't work everywhere without change, we have failed our mission." As soon as there were more than one container, Avalon failed in the "future compatible" department and our struggles over the last year has been centered around this fact. Technical solutions for 'running Fortress components' are probably less hard nut to crack than getting everyone's mind set on 'where is the road forward?'. Cheers Niclas -- +-//---+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +--//--+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Sunday 11 April 2004 14:40, Leif Mortenson wrote: > I don't have the experience with Merlin to say whether or not it is > easier to use than > Fortress. My concern is that I can not just drop the dozens and dozens of > components that I have build up into Merlin as is. Leif, I understand this, and it is an important concern, and I am planning to address it in due time. However, I would like to straighten out what I think could be FUD more than facts, but I may be wrong and something in Fortress is SO EASY to use, that one can't resist it. That is what I am trying to find out now. Cheers Niclas -- +-//---+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +--//--+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Sunday 11 April 2004 12:17, hammett wrote: Then compare its usage, embedded mostly. More evasive statements. I asked very concretely; "Give me a use-case where Fortress is easier to _use_ than Merlin." The rationale is that I don't know Fortress well enough, and I suspect that the "light-weight camp" don't know Merlin very well either, and make assumptions that MAY or MAY NOT be true. I only seek the truth, not debate whether one solution or the other is better. You have failed to answer a simple question, and I hope others in the "light-weight camp" can step up and provide me the answer to; "Can someone show me one or more use cases of Fortress being easier to USE than Merlin?", and I don't expect you to explain how to do in Merlin, just what is purported as the "easy case" where Fortress excel. I don't have the experience with Merlin to say whether or not it is easier to use than Fortress. My concern is that I can not just drop the dozens and dozens of components that I have build up into Merlin as is. They all make use of Fortress's meta model (which may not be all that far off from Merlin) The main concern is the lack of Selectors in Merlin. It sounds like there are other ways to do the same thing but they require changes to those components. Code like the following is very common throughout my code. Currently Fortress is the only container that supports this syntax. serviceManager.lookup( xxx.ROLE + "/" + hint ); I probably missed the discussion where the subject of including that syntax in Merlin was discussed. I would not be able to switch over every single application that I am supporting, so for a while at least, all of the common components would need to somehow support both Merlin and Fortress. I am sure I am not alone in this. If the various containers are not going to be forward compatible then it kind of trashes the whole reason for having a "standard" API like framework. If Merlin is the future at Avalon then there is no reason that Fortress needs to do everything that Merlin can do. But to me at least, it is very important that the other way around is true. Cheers, Leif - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Sunday 11 April 2004 12:17, hammett wrote: > Then compare its usage, embedded mostly. More evasive statements. I asked very concretely; "Give me a use-case where Fortress is easier to _use_ than Merlin." The rationale is that I don't know Fortress well enough, and I suspect that the "light-weight camp" don't know Merlin very well either, and make assumptions that MAY or MAY NOT be true. I only seek the truth, not debate whether one solution or the other is better. You have failed to answer a simple question, and I hope others in the "light-weight camp" can step up and provide me the answer to; "Can someone show me one or more use cases of Fortress being easier to USE than Merlin?", and I don't expect you to explain how to do in Merlin, just what is purported as the "easy case" where Fortress excel. Cheers Niclas -- +-//---+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +--//--+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
- Original Message - From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The question wasn't about the complexity inside Merlin. The statements has > been "Merlin is hard to use.", "Merlin is not easy to X." and along these > lines. Then compare its usage, embedded mostly. > I would like to see some facts in this, as I am uncapable of understanding > such assertions. Sure you are. How much do you know of Fortress or anything else that could be a base of comparisson? "When everything you have is a hammer, everthing else looks like nails" But this discussion is useless. Stay with merlin, as it is. It fits your needs, then stick with it. And the opposite is true, though. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Sunday 11 April 2004 11:22, hammett wrote: > Do you really want to go on with it? Build a stack trace of a component > being added to Fortress and to Merlin. Isn't this somewhat irrelevant? The question wasn't about the complexity inside Merlin. The statements has been "Merlin is hard to use.", "Merlin is not easy to X." and along these lines. I would like to see some facts in this, as I am uncapable of understanding such assertions. Niclas -- +-//---+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +--//--+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
- Original Message - From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Could someone please provide some facts about this? > (Use-case of what is so simple in Fortress, and let the Merlin camp show the > direct equivalent.) Do you really want to go on with it? Build a stack trace of a component being added to Fortress and to Merlin. Also, check a stack trace of a component lookup. I'll say, lets sleep on this subject and focus on solutions. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Sunday 11 April 2004 07:24, peter royal wrote: > assuming the s-a-p provides the same simplicity of use. merlin as it > exists today is not in that category. This is brought up on a weekly basis, but I wonder how much is FUD and how much are facts. Could someone please provide some facts about this? (Use-case of what is so simple in Fortress, and let the Merlin camp show the direct equivalent.) Niclas -- +-//---+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +--//--+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
[1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [3] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [2] Fortress moves to D-Haven [2] Fortress moves to codehaus [n/a] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate [2] enable migration to the single Avalon platform * assuming the s-a-p provides the same simplicity of use. merlin as it exists today is not in that category. [3] fork to somewhere else [n/a] do nothing [non-viable] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact how to) * merlin is more complex than fortress -pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
On Apr 10, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Shash Chatterjee wrote: As Leif and Hammett have said, there is no compelling reason for Fortress/Phoenix users to change containers currently. These containers need to be maintained and allowed to evolve gradually. +1 I think a large point that has been missed is that people are building *PRODUCTS* on top of Avalon technology. For product-oriented developers, switching the base platforms upon which everything else is built is very *NON-TRIVIAL*. No matter how "easy" it is to migrate. -pete - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: moving on (was Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress)
Stephen, The Avalon community took a vote on this subject and decided to resolve things with one architecture, one platform, one container. That decision has ripple effect which your currently witnessing - but the upside is that people are actually making decisions based on fact: * one avalon RI I understand that. But as feedback before and after that vote has made it apparent, many users from the current base find that to be the incorrect decision. New adopters of Avalon can go in droves for Merlin, as they are adopting something new in any case, but that does not mean much for current users. A vote happened, but nothing says that is cast in stone. It is up to us as a community to review decisions on a continual basis, and make error corrections to the course as necessary (I realize, not up to me individually, since I am not even a committer). It cannot be that we continually steer towards an impending shipwreck, just because we once took a vote and made what to many seems like a wrong decision. You and others in the PMC have the power to reevaluate and, if necessary, correct past decisions. This isn't about setting a context to get framework right - its about going way beyond framework and doing what Avalon has been chartered to do: * component and service management On the context of one RI and our charter, we do have a responsibility to provide a viable migration path. I hope that you'll contribute to that because there a lot of benefit in getting the migration process right. That benefit is all about one community working together on one platform. Looking further out its about going beyond "containers" - focusing much more on the bigger picture of an globally integrated service management environment. From this perspective the current issues concerning migration are short term and addressable - and a necessary part of moving on. That is fantastic. I look forward to great advances in service management, and as I said in an earlier post, really look forward to a migration path to Merlin and its service management capabilities. I will also pitch in areas that pike my interest or need. But, we have a lot of inertia in existing projects that I don't ever see migrating to Merlin, even if there is a migration path; I see new projects starting to take advantage of the new capabilities. The existing projects need stability in the framework interfaces, a way to get bug fixes, and take advantage of incremental advances in capability. The reality is that currently Avalon is about containment. Merlin is the one forging ahead, it is new, its users are new. Why not leave Avalon as it is and form a new TLP for the future? Those needing their mission-critical applications supported can get that. Those needing advance service management can get that too. It is a win-win for all, if we both support the status-quo as well as move ahead with a new model. It does not need to be either or, there are enough developers for both. Shash - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moving on (was Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress)
Shash: The Avalon community took a vote on this subject and decided to resolve things with one architecture, one platform, one container. That decision has ripple effect which your currently witnessing - but the upside is that people are actually making decisions based on fact: * one avalon RI This isn't about setting a context to get framework right - its about going way beyond framework and doing what Avalon has been chartered to do: * component and service management On the context of one RI and our charter, we do have a responsibility to provide a viable migration path. I hope that you'll contribute to that because there a lot of benefit in getting the migration process right. That benefit is all about one community working together on one platform. Looking further out its about going beyond "containers" - focusing much more on the bigger picture of an globally integrated service management environment. From this perspective the current issues concerning migration are short term and addressable - and a necessary part of moving on. Cheers, Stephen. Shash Chatterjee wrote: I haven't yet discovered a solution which seems perfect to me. Perhaps it is one of these but I need to give them more thought. Also, merlin is a much better candidate as a TLP. Fortress could then stay in Avalon. As Leif and Hammett have said, there is no compelling reason for Fortress/Phoenix users to change containers currently. These containers need to be maintained and allowed to evolve gradually. As also has been mentioned, there are different sets of developers ready to support each container. I do not view breaking up the containers into either TLPs or, alternatively, Avalon sub-projects as a bad things; that politically and administratively demarcates the interface/implementation split that architecturally Avalon already has. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest| || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
I haven't yet discovered a solution which seems perfect to me. Perhaps it is one of these but I need to give them more thought. Also, merlin is a much better candidate as a TLP. Fortress could then stay in Avalon. As Leif and Hammett have said, there is no compelling reason for Fortress/Phoenix users to change containers currently. These containers need to be maintained and allowed to evolve gradually. As also has been mentioned, there are different sets of developers ready to support each container. I do not view breaking up the containers into either TLPs or, alternatively, Avalon sub-projects as a bad things; that politically and administratively demarcates the interface/implementation split that architecturally Avalon already has. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Hi Leif. Good points! That makes me wonder why people - users - like you and me and others would like to upgrade if the current solution just works(tm)? ...and don't forget Goldilocksit is also "just right" :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
.. Original Message ... On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:09:07 -0400 Berin Loritsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I haven't read all the responses nor can I at the moment, but here is my brief $0.02. > >[2] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance >[2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP >[3] Fortress moves to D-Haven >[3] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) >[-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate > I haven't yet discovered a solution which seems perfect to me. Perhaps it is one of these but I need to give them more thought. Also, merlin is a much better candidate as a TLP. Fortress could then stay in Avalon. ___ jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
.. Original Message ... On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:09:07 -0400 Berin Loritsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I haven't read all the responses nor can I at the moment, but here is my brief $0.02. > >[2] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance >[2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP >[3] Fortress moves to D-Haven >[3] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) >[-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate > I haven't yet discovered a solution which seems perfect to me. Perhaps it is one of these but I need to give them more thought. Also, merlin is a much better candidate as a TLP. Fortress could then stay in Avalon. ___ jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
- Original Message -
From: "Leif Mortenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have not spent much time with Merlin, but from all of the posts it
sounds like a move
> from Fortress to Merlin would be far from trivial. My applications all
consist of a
> bootstrap main which starts Fortress. Fortress is then in charge of
running all of the
> components. I make heavy use of the lookup("role/hint") syntax, which
> does not appear to be supported by Merlin. If I could swap out Fortress
for
> Merlin and have all of my components just work. Then I would have
complaints. But as
> is Fortress is the only thing that can be used without investing lots of
time
> upgrading a large number of components to work with either scheme. They
would have to work with
> both as it is not feasible to upgrade every single app that makes use of
my core
> utility components.
Hi Leif. Good points!
That makes me wonder why people - users - like you and me and others would
like to upgrade if the current solution just works(tm)?
--
hammett
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Berin Loritsch wrote:
I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on
forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form
of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your
preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you
have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is
completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it.
[1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance
[2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP
[3] Fortress moves to D-Haven
[4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here)
[-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate
I have been very bad about finding time to contribute much lately. But
Fortress is
an integral part of several projects that I use at a number of customer
sites as well
as for in house projects. At this point it is a great light weight
container that does
everything I need.
It sounds like there are some issues with getting it "stable" build-wise
again. But
at one point it had been quite stable and any issues must have come from
the move
from Ant to Maven??
In my experience, Fortress appears to be a very stable option. The
fact that many
of those who have been involved in ECM, Fortress, Phoenix development
have left
for a number of reasons is a great shame. And given that the remaining
avalon
members have been concentrating on Merlin, I can understand the desire
to move
in that direction. But to our users, Avalon is a tool that is used to
to make the projects
that they are interested in developing possible. We need to provide a
consistent API
and a reliable future if we expect those users to stick around.
If Merlin does not fit on top of the contracts that we have released in
the past. And I
mean that components can be used as is without any modification of their
code. Then
I think we are doing a disservice to our user base.
I have not spent much time with Merlin, but from all of the posts it
sounds like a move
from Fortress to Merlin would be far from trivial. My applications all
consist of a
bootstrap main which starts Fortress. Fortress is then in charge of
running all of the
components. I make heavy use of the lookup("role/hint") syntax, which
does not
appear to be supported by Merlin. If I could swap out Fortress for
Merlin and have
all of my components just work. Then I would have complaints. But as
is Fortress
is the only thing that can be used without investing lots of time
upgrading a large number
of components to work with either scheme. They would have to work with
both as
it is not feasible to upgrade every single app that makes use of my core
utility
components.
I would like to see Fortress stay around in a form that can be modified
if any
problems are encountered. I don't like the option of a final snapshot
of the code
at all as that would effectively mean that I would have to start my own CVS
repository to track all of the future changes myself. :-P That would
be foolish
as other users would be having to do the same thing...
To our users, Avalon is ECM, Phoenix and to a lesser degree Fortress.
If Merlin
is branching from that then it makes more sense to branch Merlin off on
its own than
to kill the existing Avalon APIs
Having a merlin.apache.org along side avalon.apache.org would also
remove a lot of
the tension that have been in this project over the last year or two.
By doing so,
hopefully some of the original committers would come back and both
groups could
go on their happy way. Am I dreaming?
I would really love to get more involved again. But frankly every time
I try it seems
like a majority of the messages are bickering and I just don't have the
energy for it.
Avalon goes on the back burner for a couple more months until I decide
to try reading
posts again... There appears to be two clearly defined groups in
Avalon. Sad as it
may be, it may be time for a break up. It seems like that would be
best for our users,
and best for everyone who simply wants to get to work. I can't imagine
that anyone
really enjoys all of this bickering.
Cheers,
Leif
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
> >[x] enable migration to the single avalon platform >[ ] fork to somewhere else >[ ] do nothing > Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
> [1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance > [3] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP > [2] Fortress moves to D-Haven > [4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) > [0] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate Cheers, hammett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Berin: [1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [3] Fortress moves to D-Haven [4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [9] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate [1] enable migration to the single Avalon platform [4] fork to somewhere else [9] do nothing [2] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact how to) (lower is more priority, 1 is best, 2 is not as good, etc.) I'd also be quite happy to commit to assist in maintenance of Fortress, if needed/required. -- Michael Nash JGlobal Ltd Next-Generation Web Application Development and Open Source Support http://www.jglobal.com Bahamas Commerce and Trade Offshore eCommerce Hosting and Business Services http://www.bahamascommerce.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
[1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [3] Fortress moves to D-Haven [4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [9] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate (lower is more priority, 1 is better, 2 is worse.) I don't know how to show associations in this format. Here's what I really want: [1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance, binary compatibility, and new enhancements/features. At the same time, have a defined migration path with binary compatibility to the unified Avalon container (must support features ECM, Phoenix, Fortress users have come to depend upon, even though they may not technically be the best solutions). I'll also add that I am volunteering to help with maintaining and enhancing Fortress as part of a team. Shash Berin Loritsch wrote: I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it. [] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [] Fortress moves to D-Haven [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate This is merely an opinion poll, so please don't write real long comments. If you have a new option, write it in. The results of the opinion poll will feed a proposal I have so that we can move along quickly. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
You guys are making me have to type more than I want too: > [0] fork to somewhere else > [-1] do nothing > [10] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact how to) > > [0] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance > > [-1] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP > > [1] Fortress moves to D-Haven > > [-1] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) > > [-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate > [2] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact howto) [3] Merlin supports Fortress components - with zero effort upgrade path. -- Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Alex Karasulu wrote: [3] Merlin supports Fortress components - with zero effort upgrade path. for clarity, IMO The fortress interface needs to be supported as well. The ECM -> Fortress is a major hassle, which is bad to repeat. Concretely, http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/avalon/fortress/examples/src/java/org/apache/avalon/fortress/examples/servlet/Attic/servlet.java?hideattic=0 should work with preferably 0 code changes, just updating the classpath. -- cheers, - Leo Simons --- Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/ Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/ Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/ --- "We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." -- Alan Bennett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Well if these where the options then I'd go with this: > [x ] enable migration to the single avalon platform > [ ] fork to somewhere else > [ ] do nothing I don't care how we get there so long as we do it to stop perplexing our user community. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [0] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance > > [-1] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP > > [1] Fortress moves to D-Haven > > [-1] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) > > [-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate > [2] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact howto) [3] Merlin supports Fortress components - with zero effort upgrade path. The larger the number the higher the preference. Cheers, Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Stephen McConnell wrote: Following Berin's request here is revised opinion poll. ?^^^? Revised? @#(*$%& Added entries. Come on. I am not looking for mutually exclusive entries, that would be a vote. I am looking for an order of preference. I really need to take English lessons because apparently I cannot communicate. Either that or the people I am trying to communicate with choose not to hear what I am trying to say. The full list of entries, that have been entered so far are: [] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [] Fortress moves to D-Haven [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate [] enable migration to the single Avalon platform [] fork to somewhere else [] do nothing [] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact how to) For those who want to know, the difference between a fork and a move: A fork can be done at any time by anyone who is not satisfied with the way a codebase is handled. We *could* have 20 forks around, even though that would not be advisable. A move is a sanctioned transfer of assets from one community to another. There can only be one move between two parties. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Following Berin's request here is revised opinion poll. [X] enable migration to the single avalon platform [ ] fork to somewhere else [ ] do nothing Steve. -- || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest| || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
[x ] enable migration to the single avalon platform [ ] fork to somewhere else [ ] do nothing Best Regards -- Nader Aeinehchi Aasenhagen 66 E 2020 Skedsmokorset NORWAY Direct and Mobile +47 41 44 29 57 Tel (private): +47 64 83 09 08 Fax +47 64 83 08 07 www.aeinehchi.com - Original Message - From: "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Avalon Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress > > Following Berin's request here is revised opinion poll. > >[ ] enable migration to the single avalon platform >[ ] fork to somewhere else >[ ] do nothing > > Cheers, Stephen. > > > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on > > forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form > > of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your > > preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you > > have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely > > disagreeable put a -1 next to it. > > > > [] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance > > [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP > > [] Fortress moves to D-Haven > > [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) > > [] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate > > > > This is merely an opinion poll, so please don't write real long > > comments. If you have a new option, write it in. The results of the > > opinion poll will feed a proposal I have so that we can move along quickly. > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > > || > | Magic by Merlin| > | Production by Avalon | > || > | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| > | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest| > || > > - > 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: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Following Berin's request here is revised opinion poll. [ ] enable migration to the single avalon platform [ ] fork to somewhere else [ ] do nothing Cheers, Stephen. Berin Loritsch wrote: I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it. [] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [] Fortress moves to D-Haven [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate This is merely an opinion poll, so please don't write real long comments. If you have a new option, write it in. The results of the opinion poll will feed a proposal I have so that we can move along quickly. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest| || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
> I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on > forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form > of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your > preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you > have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely > disagreeable put a -1 next to it. > > [2] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance > [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP > [3] Fortress moves to D-Haven > [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) > [-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate [1] clean upgrade path to merlin (exact howto) > > This is merely an opinion poll, so please don't write real long > comments. If you have a new option, write it in. The results of the > opinion poll will feed a proposal I have so that we can move along > quickly. > > > - > 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: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Berin Loritsch wrote: [8] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [3] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [3] Fortress moves to D-Haven [9] Fortress moves to XXX (several viable candidates) [8] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate 1 being clearly preferred and 100 being the end of the world. -- cheers, - Leo Simons --- Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/ Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/ Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/ --- "We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." -- Alan Bennett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Berin: I think your questionnaire is missing a really important option - namely the managed migration of to the avalon containment platform. Based on the efforts from Niclas in cleaning up the fortress build and dependency issues, we now have fortress building relatively cleanly - and building in gump. For the first time in months we are in a position to actually capture breaking changes to the codebase. From this position - and with the interest expressed already by several users, we have the potential to do the following: 1. enable code maintenance as required 2. move forward with migration tools (linked to avalon-finder) 3. enable a potential fork if a community of interests considers this as viable As to the questionnaire - I disagree with the questions and implications. First off - the notion of "move" implies that the code is not maintained in Avalon. That notion should be dropped - the code is managed by the Avalon PMC is as far as I am concerned is not going anywhere. However, forking the codebase is perfectly acceptable. As to the final option - your mixing "migration" with the "nuking" and "forcing users". I happen to think that migration is the best all round solution. However in presenting such an option I would be choosing different adjectives. For example: [X] Work together on a viable Fortress/ECM migration strategy What this means is that the code stays where it is available for maintenance. In addition we work on building the necessary support for migration - which I figure can be done reasonably rapidly based on the expressions of interest already put forward. Cheers, Stephen. Berin Loritsch wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: Berin Loritsch wrote: I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it. [X] Work together on a viable Fortress/ECM migration strategy Stephen. Can you please put it in the form of order of preference like I did? Remember that this is only an opinion poll. Nothing binding here. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest| || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Stephen McConnell wrote: Berin Loritsch wrote: I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it. [X] Work together on a viable Fortress/ECM migration strategy Stephen. Can you please put it in the form of order of preference like I did? Remember that this is only an opinion poll. Nothing binding here. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
In order of my preference: [1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [3] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [2] Fortress moves to D-Haven [4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [-1] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion Gathering on Fortress
Berin Loritsch wrote: I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it. [X] Work together on a viable Fortress/ECM migration strategy Stephen. -- || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest| || - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
