Peter Donald wrote: [snip] [Conor MacNeill wrote:] > >My point is: You have stated that developing code for Ant would duplicate > >Avalong but be "raw and untested", whatever raw means. The clear implication > >is that Avalon's code is "tested". I am trying to find out how you have > >tested. Where is this code deployed that it has received significant > >testing. You are making assertions and I want to see the facts. > > Okay it is based on code from way back (jserv times) that has gradually > been refined. The original developers (Stefano, Pier and Fede) are all > fairly smart and know their stuff. You can actually see many of the ideas > being reflected in industry based standards. ComponentManager stuff is > basically a stripped down version of using JNDI to compose systems (like in > EJB or servlet land), Configuration et al has similar parralels and context > is fairly universal through component land.
I think Conor wanted to know which applications already use Avalon as base framework and how these applications have undergone tests and/or real world usage. Wolf
