Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > > [...] > >> 3) The containers that are in the works, as cool as they seem to be, > >>are still scratchpad stuff, and thus should be clearly put in a place > >>where it's clear to all. Current structure is really confusing, and > >>releases are a very important part of our system. > >> > > > > And personally I'm still wondering if we really need different > > implementations > > with different features. But this is another topic, we should discuss > > when it is time. > > Actually, I think it's time, and as for the topic, I've made a new one ;-) > Great :)
> It can be that we will eventually come to a single design, and in fact > Merlin and Fortress developers have worked well on this. It seems to be > doable, and probably it hasn't been so near. > > But it has to be agreed on by everyone, and everyone has to work on that > codebase. Ok. > > Phoenix is released, proved and really stable. Think that someone has > even gotten James working on a C# based JVM (ok, technically it doesn't > mean much but it's amusing that he tried it on James). > Merlin and Fortress are new promising designs, that actually have been > collaborating and partially converging. > > Technically it seems sensible that there be one framework and more > possible implementations. Community-wise, I'm not so sure. > Think for example about a Cocoon framework and multiple implementations. > It's even hard to immagine. > Yes, this is exactly the point I'm also thinking about. Of course, the concepts of Avalon are "generic" so that it is possible to have different implementations for a framework. But personally, I doubt that this is a good idea *if* the implementations offer different features. If the implementations would only differ in performance, memory usage etc - I would say, ok this makes sense and I can choose the implementation which fits best my enironment (server application, desktop application etc.) > I still don't see major needs of having different implementations. Maybe > different running environments, different profiles, but one > implementation, as Cocoon has Serlet, CLI, etc running modes. > > But I also don't have a solution at hand; if we cannot come to a single > implementation, probably it's because we still don't know how to do it. Yes, that's possible. Now, we could try to make a single implementation where all agree on and only if this does not work - we can start several ones. My perception is, that it is possible to reach a wide consensus on this. Carsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
