At 09:52 20/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>> At 11:12 19/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> >-1 for all the reasons outlined in my other email. We need to make sure
>> > that Avalon is not only Modular, but that it isn't fragmented either.
>> > It's a fine line to walk--and I think that this should be revisited
>> > when JSR-111 has it's first public deliverable.
>>
>> Well it is probably best to look at use case. As I have said before most of
>> my uses of the framework part do not need *anything* out of excalibur
>> (except maybe CLI package). The framework is just that - framework -
>> completely independent of any arbitrary components created using said
>> framework.
>
>If you don't need it, don't use it. Simple.
stupid arguement - do I really need to point out why ?
>> What benefit to our users does including the components provide?
>
>Tons. It means that they don't have to reinvent the wheel if they don't
>want to. It means that they have examples readily available of the
>framework in action. People are basically lazy, and won't bother looking
>in another project (even if it is associated) so they will start implementing
>their own version of things before they realize that they are wasting or
>have wasted time on something that works just as well.
So why not include all the commons projects in avalonapi?
>> >I think the timing is bad for this kind of move, because the ramifications
>> >can't possibly be completely thought out yet.
>>
>> agreed - but I am reluctant to beta-ize before doing this.
>
>Why is that? All I am saying is go beta with the components in the jar.
>We can then discuss the ramifications, so that for a _distant_ release
>we will revisit this.
So we go beta now with the assumption that we will change the arrangement
later to break everyones builds ? Does that really sound like a good thing?
>To be honest, I would have a real problem if we didn't go beta because
>you didn't get to remove excalibur into a new CVS. According to all the
>feedback, noone agrees with the move--so why do it? And why punish those
>of us who want beta and stability because we don't have a separate CVS?
I am not punishing you in anyway - you are free to put in the work and veto
any changes that come along - thats the beauty of a meritocracy. I have
already compromised enough on technical matters - consider this the line in
the sand - no further will I compromise. I don't mind supporting a beta
even if it is not 100% what I want - however this goes beyond what I
consider an acceptable compromise.
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 |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
