On Thursday 22 July 2004 22:36, Scott Brickner wrote: > I don't see how Merlin as a top-level project addresses the issue of > "too much changes [sic] to the Avalon Legacy".
Sorry for my english not being perfect :o) > I'm not, generally, opposed to the idea of moving Merlin, but leaving > the Avalon project without a reference container seems like a bad idea. > If the Avalon project were able to continue to give clear direction to > potential users on containers, the move would be ok. The interpretations of what Avalon Framework is, how it should work, to what extent and so forth, are so wide and diverse, that basically no (or only extremely marginal) changes can be made to it, without some container author disagrees with it. We have seen many examples of this in the past. I.e. There will be little or no changes to Avalon Framework. As for LogKit, I am not sure if anyone are interested in any evolution at this point, and instead energy is spent on influencing Ceki to include the IoC aspects in Log4J 2.0 instead. As for Cornerstone, I think there will be some concerted effort to make those components cross container compatible. The 'Specification' was initially too weak, which gave room for interpretation, and experience seems to show that a 'Reference Container' is not viable. _I_ for one, wish that this could be true... Exactly what the Avalon community should answer in the future (if Merlin gets a TLP) to the very frequent question "Which container?" remains unknown at this point. IMOHO, the answer should be in form of a 'sales pitch' from each container project/product on strengths, and let the user make a qualified decision. Cheers Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.bali.ac / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
