Jason, This is way cool. I'll come over to the Turbine lists and give a respectful hand. Some facts that may help convince the great man ..
1) Component and Block ( the empty marker interfaces ) are no longer pre-requisites for developing Avalon components. - We have evolved ways of building comps that are friendly to non-Avalon re-use and friendly to comps not started in Avalon. Essentially we can wrap things in Avalon interfaces to various degrees. 2) You may want to be anal about naming, my experience is that newbies are affected by and regenerate FUD concerning 'Avalon' ( which is only a project ). 'Avalon-Framework' describes some core interfaces and concepts, Avalon-Excalibur is a set of pre-existing utility comps, Avalon-Phoeinx is the kernel on which we mount servers.... etc. 3) hmmm more later ;-) -ph >Hi, > >Just thought I would share some preliminary good news. Informally in IRC >we have decided that in Turbine land we will push as much of our bean >type code into the commons, drop our service and component packages and >use Avalon instead. Five of the core people have agreed, but I'm not >interested in rolling another component framework in straight Java (as >opposed to AspectJ) so I will push for Avalon's use. The last person I >have to convince is Jon :-) I will be posting something to the Turbine >list tomorrow but things look good so far. So if there's anyone who >wants to join in to possibly temper the discussion feel free. > >Technically I think this is the best thing for Turbine, and hopefully it >will start to close some of the rifts that have formed in Jakarta over >the last couple of years. > >I would like to thank Vincent Massol for convincing me that it would be >in Turbine's best interest to use Avalon :-) > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
