Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:57, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>
>>yup. I don't have a better answer than anyone else to this dilemma. All
>>I know is that it would be very nice for me, and I think for many avalon
>>users, to have only bugfixes, docs, testing etc for phoenix for like 6
>>months or so.
>
>
> why would we want to hobble Phoenix in that way?
I think a sensible approach is to do what Linux Kernel development does.
It branches the development into a Stable branch and a Development
branch. The truth is we need a *stable* Phoenix.
By splitting the development in that way, we don't stifle Phoenix's
development but we also provide a stable branch for users.
>>The answer to questions like the one leading to the changes we're
>>talking about now could be "we don't support this directly. Wait until
>>phoenix 5 or so or solve at the application level". It's about choosing
>>between stability/compatibility and continuous improvement. It seems I'm
>>wrong in this particular case, but on a larger scale it is something
>>where we need to shift the balance towards stability.
>
>
> It has already happened. If you have not been taking notice of the commits you
> will have missed that this is exactly what is happening. Almost all the work
> that is going into Phoenix (and Fortress for that matter) at this stage is
> consolidation.
>
> Parts are being extracted and unit tested to a far greater degree than before.
> Features that we have been putting off for ages are being added in and unit
> tested.
Yep.
> For example we have talked about allowing Map as dependencies since before you
> were involved with Avalon - way back when it was just me Berin, Fede and
> Stefano. Arrays have been "approved" before but no one ever got around to
> implementing them.
I'll be honest, I don't recall those conversations or the problems that
the Map/Array were supposed to solve. They probably occured, but I am
not sure that forcing a returned value based on a postfix is probably
not the best answer.
> The ClassLoader stuff I am implementing atm has been needed for ages and will
> allow us to embed Catalina (and/or Jo!) into phoenix cleanly. Something that
> has seen some discussion lately on the Phoenix list. It will also allow us to
> embed EJBs if one so desires.
That has been needed for ages.
> After that there will be integration of Installer enhancements (from XML),
> then comes Auto-Assembly, factorys that can create Avalon services from
> WebServices, exposing kernel components to applications etc.
Kool.
> Finally we will integrate the Info and interceptor architecture combo. This
> will allow us to do things that are not possible in any container now
> (Avalon, EJB or CORBA) and allow us much more flexibility than ever (and
> scarily half the credit for that belongs with Microsoft).
;P That is scary. The two language features that C# has that are
necessary for modern development are delegates and attributes. I would
love both of these features to exist in Java--and it will probably
happen by 2038 (when 32 bit clocks are insufficient). Delegates are
critical to intelligent software (i.e. artificial intelligence), and
Attributes are critical to component lookup and resolution.
Damn, makes me wish I had a C# compiler....
>
> If you think you have something to offer then participate. If you don't want
> to see any progress for whatever reason then don't. Simple as that really.
>
I would be much more comfortable if we had a stable branch (which can be
separate from the MAIN branch). The stable branch would only have bug
fixes for six months, or until we are ready to make the development
branch the stable one.
Do you think that would be possible?
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
