> From: Leo Simons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 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.
+ A4 -> A5 proposal would have changed just about everything about
how you write and interact with components. (Instability.)
Do not confuse backwards-compatibility and migration paths with
stability. Backwards compatibility just means "jump later" as
opposed to "jump now". Migration path = I'll show you how to jump.
> 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.
And these two things conflict in what way?
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
