> > Then Avalon would be left with threee things. Client API for components (aka > > Framework), Containers for Client API (aka Fortress/Phoenix/Merlin) and some > > Services (though I am not sure whether these belong in another project or in > > commons or what). > > The Turbine folks, who are now moving steadily to Avalon based as you > know, have showed interest in a repository for Avalon Components.
IMO The repository idea is especially important for COP. The nice thing about COP is that you can use a lot of things that were already done in your work. Putting Avalon components in Commons is I think a mistake, since no one looking for a specific component to do a job will go through the work seperating non-components and utilities from the actual component implementations. It might hinder the adoption of the framework. I know, same applies currently to Excalibur, and that's why the utilities (io, concurrent, collections and so on) should go into commons. > > For me it's > avalon-services.apache.org > > or > services.apache.org > > or simply in > commons.apache.org As I said, I don't think it's a good place there. > > NOTE: > > IIUC commons.apache.org has been voted > > incubator.apache.org has also been voted successfully > > > At times I have thought that moving Phoenix+Cornerstone+Apps to a new project > > would be a good thing and then at other times I hate the idea so ... ;) A good idea IMO would also be to merge cornerstone and maybe apps with excalibur to form a service repository, maybe under the name of cornerstone, or Excalibur, or 'services'. All these projects are component repositiories anyway already. ------------------- Marc Schier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
