I'm also -1 on Avalon - same reasons as Remy, plus more ( the IoC madness/obsession, the over-design, ever-changing interfaces, logkit, etc.)
Some components are good, and the move to commons is great - but I'm strongly -1 on using the framework. Costin On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > For all the things it gives you, Avalon is a framework, and makes you > feel like it. It imposes contracts between components / patterns, > packaging, etc. All things which aren't compatible with 5.0. And more > importantly, the API changes often, to the extent that all the projects > which use Avalon work off a specific snapshot, and don't upgrade too often. > > Also, most of the utility provided by Avalon are available from the > commons without any string attached, and/or are of a better quality. > > There has been plenty of discussion on that with Paul, and during the > whole commons-logging incident, at which point I thought it would be > best if I didn't have anything to do with Avalon. > > OTOH, we could have optional Avalon wrappers again, as long as there is > someone to write them *and* maintain them when the API changes. So +0.1 > to work nice with Avalon, but -1 for basing the architecture on Avalon. > > Remy > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
