On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 23:16, Pete Carapetyan wrote: > Stephen McConnell wrote: > <snip> > And that paragraph just about says it all for me. Jeez Louise. Is this > complexity for the sake of complexity or am I just going cookoo? I'll > second Haberman's motion that good design means a second version is not > warranted in most circumstances. > > But wait, this next paragraph is even better. <snip>
Hear, hear. I am glad that someone said it. As a newbie to Avalon myself, I have to tell you, it takes a LOT of discipline to stick with Avalon and sort through all this complexity. And it does not have to be this way! Granted, Avalon is tackling a tough problem. However, I know that naming, package selection and consolidation, defaults, and organization can all be greatly improved by following KISS guidelines. I have been talking to a lot of people about Avalon. I know damn good Java developers that look at it and cannot figure out what is going on, and walk away. These are senior software engineers that are well respected. That is a problem. If there are some Avalon developers saying one container, and other developers saying three, make it one. If some want simpler organization, and others more complex, choose the simpler. Please. - Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
