Peter Royal wrote: > Avalon evolves. When it was mentioned that a tomcat developer disliked avalon > because there are always code changes when upgrading. Two responses: > > 1) Its a framework, frameworks evolve > 2) When you pick a version, an upgrade is not required. The Avalon project > produces very high quality code (from my experience)
Leo Sutic wrote: > We always strive for perfection, meaning that our record > of stability just plain *isn't*. But isn't there a place > for a giant sandbox type development of *architectures*, > from which other projects may take the best parts? can we please put a stop to comments like these, that state or imply avalon is not stable, or backwards-compatible? The parts of avalon that are marked as stable are almost as stable as software can get. If you disagree with this, please show some concrete examples why this is not true. Otherwise, don't say it. On the one hand I see people talking about better branding and marketing, and on the other hand I see (the same) people marking the product as unstable. thanks, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
