On 6/7/05, Juan Carlos Murillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do you want to fork and continue development on a framework that is > dead and buried by the Apache Foundation and its own creators?
Couple of points: a. We know the code, we know how it works, everything is stable as is. b. Ripping out the underlying framework touches a lot of code and these radical changes are hard in volunteer projects. They require extensive testing, feature freezes, and a huge investment for little reward, which are very hard to justify in organic development. c. Should we need to, we can fork pieces that need fixes or we want to tweak but are not ready to completel replace. d. We /are/ looking to refactor the James codebase to become independent of Avalon while still run within Avalon. This allows for a gradual transition, improves testability, and some developer can better grab and use pieces of James (long-term project benefits, short-term project benefits, and developer benefits) I'll preface this to say I've never been a big fan of Avalon, but I'd suggest that this evaluation of Avalon should be applied to all software dependencies. For example, I think that finding a replacement for Javamail/JAF would help James much more than a replacement for Avalon. A framework does touch most of your code, but in the end it does provide only some specific purposes. At least we have all the source code at our disposal, and conversely, what have we lost if people aren't independently working on the framework? -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
