Federico Barbieri wrote: > > >Paul Hammant wrote: > > > > > >>(Vote) -1 > >> > (strong opinion) -0.99 > > two reasons: > first there is been tension and flames, if you force everyone into the > same room you'll get more. Let the dust settle first. > second IMHO avalon scope is wide enough to justify more than one > implementation (not many but more than one). > I may want to *focus* on performances, scalability, user friendlness, > resource usage etc. > Ok, as I tried to express, I agree on having different implementations because of scalability and performance, but not on features.
But perhaps it's really better to see the development of the current implementations grow nad have a look then at what we have. Carsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
