> to make this clear, once for all, > > I DON'T _WANT_ TO USE THEIR LIFECYCLE! > > But it is the only really useful lifecycle interface that there is around, > so we _WILL_ use their lifecycle. > > MUCH MUCH MORE, I'd prefer that they donate their lifecycle classes to > commons and then Avalon uses commons-lifecycle. AND WE USE COMMONS-LIFECYCLE!
Does it really matter that much that it is not in commons? Avalon-Framework has a strong community where it is, it has been through several releases, and has excellent policy. Hang out on avalon-dev for a while and you get a great feel for how stable the API really is -- they'll argue for months before deprecating something =] Moving it to commons would just upset all that. I see no reason why EVERYTHING shared has to be in commons. Lots of jakarta (and XML) projects use the avalon framework right where it is, why make things more difficult than they have to be? -- jt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
