On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 11:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Gee, this is why we we need 3 containers (your words in \"s ): > > "I can just download Avalon" micro edition " and run an example app with > the default configuration.". > > "I can get to know the application, and I can begin to understand the > possibilities. I am made aware that there are other, more complex > containers for more complex requirements, and I move to" Fortress or > even Phoenix "when I recognize that I need them.".
I agree with you. I am not breaking new ground by suggesting this. I concede that the world may be complex enough to require three different implementations, but it should be made clear that there is a default, and why the default is chosen, and why I would want to move up to other containers (advantages and tradeoffs). BTW: The three container vs. one container is the least of my issues as a newbie. The important issues are organization, and what I read, and what I download, and what I need to configure, and what the dependencies are. Almost everything I have seen as to Avalon organization can be made simpler. It sounds like everyone agrees to this, but it also sounds like there is resistance to change. I am an outsider and new to Avalon, which means I have the gift of objectivity. I am not privy to political constraints or technical limitations. I am just telling you that getting started with Avalon is extremely difficult, even for seasoned Java developers. I would love to see it made simpler for my own selfish reasons. And I would like to be able to recommend Avalon to someone at a Java Users Group, without them coming back to me and saying: "I could not figure out how to get started. I could not load it into my IDE. I did not know what components I needed. Etc..." - Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
