On 2/3/07, David Woldrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny,
<snip>
> I posted this to the PMC list in q4 2004, when we were discussing what
> to do about the closure of Avalon. Time has moved on since then but I
> think it is still relevant:
>
> ... we slowly remove all trace of Avalon and Phoenix from James,
> refactoring it into a "james-phoenix" deployment project and
> leaving "our"
> code as POJO's
>
I think your "James is a POJO chameleon" idea makes a lot of sense. If
we make it easy for 3rd parties to wrap James up, they'd do the heavy
lifting of packaging the code up for you and making it deployable to
their systems. Is there anything screwy about picking the Spring
framework as the official container into which James is poured?
Couldn't that just be how James is shipped from the core team?
experienced has proved that it's better to be container agnostic
pheonix was hot five years ago. last year, spring was hot. who knows
what'll be hot next year?
yes, ship with bindings but free the core from container dependencies
<snip>
>> If there was ever an
>> official James bug day, I would love to get involved, make some new
>> friends, and (especially) do some work towards the James-As-Plugin
>> end...
>
> Thats a nice idea, but we're a pretty global bunch and tend not to
> work regular hours.
> OTOH we've got a whole bunch of stuff in JIRA which you're welcome to
> pick from.
> In return we need to sort out our lifecycle so that you get the warm
> glow from seing your fixes released, rather than languish in svn for
> months on end.
>
Yeah, it was just a thought because I figure I'm going to need some
pretty serious handholding at first if I'm going to help out.
not a problem. you'll find people here are friendly enough :-)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
