> Still trying to figure out whether this is an April Fool's joke > that started two days ago, but I'd like to make a case for > boredom, three-piece suits (gray ones) propose: > > excalibur.system -> excalibur.container
The thread was started because we have a problem: excalibur can contain multiple implementations of component managers, systems, event packages, commands, etc. Claiming excalibur.system for a package means that an alternative to that package will have difficulty competing. Please see http://www.mail-archive.com/avalon-dev%40jakarta.apache.org/msg07515.html > On another, more personal note, it will make it very difficult > for me to 'sell' Avalon internally: Having one cool codename is fine, > but if I were to list ten or more when briefing the CTO on what > I intend to do... > > ...I will be laughed out of the room. > ...the Avalon project will get a 'geeks only' stamp on it. :) Are there any no-geeks developing Avalon? I get the point, tho. The questions is: where's the balance? - Leo __________________________________________ Launch your own web site Today! Create a Web site for your family, friends, photos, or a special event. Visit: http://www.namezero.com/sitebuilder -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
