At 06:04 PM 5/20/01 +0200, Paulo Gaspar wrote: >I come to late to this thread, but as a recent user of >parts of Avalon, this is my experience: > > - At the first sight, Avalon sure looks to be abusing > some abstractions a bit - specially the roles thing. > In this case, Conor MacNeill remarks seem to make some > sense (one needs to absorb the "Avalon culture" to use > some of those things);
I would be interested in where you see problems of this in the framework part of Avalon (I know they exist in Phoenix and to a lesser degree cornerstone). > - Another problem with Avalon, are package names like > "excalibur" or "phoenix" that are (to say the least) > a bit less helpful than I would like them; It is the apache way ;) > - Many parts of Avalon are so highly reusable outside of > the framework context, that it would even make a lot > sense to move them to the Commons including, at least: Alternatively commons should never have been created and that group should have worked with an existing project ;) > - As for the documentation, it was quite easy to me to > understand what I use trough the Javadocs, only taking > a look to the source code in order to understand the > the code's quality (which is quite good/clear for me). Unfortunately the javadocs assume that you understand the high-level concepts and DPs (ie IOC/SOC/etc) which can be intimidating at first. Luckily there is a tutorial and a papaer being prepared for ApacheCon, and also I believe an article for JavaWorld in the works so hopefully there will be more useful docs in that area real soon now ;) Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
