Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Peter Donald wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:46, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Donald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Lets get a collaborative solution on meta-info that we are all
>>>>> comfortable with first?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are comfortable with what you have done then go with it. I am
>>>> comfortable with what I have done so I am going with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So in other words - forget about collaboration.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No - as long as you want to cooperate then you are welcome to join in
>> the CK stuff. If you want I can separate out the info stuff to a
>> proposal directory
>>
>> However I don't think it is wise to bind to specific implementation
>> strategies and nor do I think it is wise to support N different
>> component models when 1 is enough.
>>
>
> Are you willing to accept a majority decision on this?
>
> If we go done this path lets do it properly. We setup a seperate
> project specifically to converge
> containerkit meta-info with excalibur/meta meta-info - the first thing
> we post is the pitch documents - you prepare "why containerkit meta-info
> is the best thing since sliced bread" and you also write up "why
> excalibur/meta is the wrong thing" (short-term, long-term, whatever). We
> go through a debate - one counter email from you, one counter email from
> me.
And the others? ;-)
Let's not bing discussion to a head2head here with one email only.
Let's say one initial email.
> We put it to a vote. You and I are excluded from the vote - we leave it
> up to the community.
>
> * if there is a majority off non-abstaining votes
>
> - we undertake to support each other's work - i.e. mutual DTD
> recognition
> and management
>
> - we mutually undertake to address concensus raised by the other
> people here
>
> - we mutually agree that vetos cannot be applied by you or I during the
> decision process
>
> - we update, we recall a vote
>
> * if there is a majority of +1 (over abstain) for a particular solution
>
> - if it containerkit you undertake to move the meta-info content into
> a seperate module from containerkit and I will undertake to
> synchronize
> Merlin to that module and dispose of excalibur/meta
>
> - if it is excalibur/meta you undertake to move the containerkit
> solution above it and dispose of cotainerkit's meta-info
>
> * if there is a discussion process arrising from the process, you and I
> both agree that they are right and our options may influence the process
> but we update the common project even if you and I don't like it - we go out of
> out way to compromise - the winner is the one who sucks-up the best to
> the future users
Ok, a bit bizantine, but I get the message: write a mail with pros and
cons, let us ask questions, see how the efforts are able to evolve and
make them converge upon community suggestions and finally vote for the
result.
Please, Peter, do it.
I also add that it's *compulsory* that any extra feature that has not
been yet published and is experimental, like container extensions, be
addresses as a Container-specific issue.
It must also be addressed how to make Components with specific stuff
interoperate with other containers via a common descriptor definition of
the requirements (*not* the solutions) and Container nesting.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
