Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > IMHO the whole Fulcrum issue gets more and more moot. Avalon has > obviously failed, Excalibur is intentionally kept at a very low > profile and just lost two of its biggest supporters (James to Spring > AFAIK and Cocoon to OSGi), so IMHO it would be good to clarify here > and say "Fulcrum is a repository of Turbine related components based > on Avalon/Excalibur technology". We should make this clear in the TLP > proposal because the board will surely ask about it.
I see no need to rush after <enter name of component technology of the year here>. Avalon has its advantages. The whole Excalibur stuff has just been updated. However I agree that probably more Turbine applications use components from outside than Fulcrum components are used outside Turbine. Anybody cares to comment about the assumed usage of Fulcrum components? > Progress is done by user support and developer needs. If the amount of > request and patches from the user community is not that high, slow > progress is ok. Remember this is not a commercial project with release > dates and deadlines. This is a question of supply and demand, I guess. Growth generates growth... Bye, Thomas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
