On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:38, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ...stuff... It was not an insult to Cocoon that a new container was developed there. The Avalon container failed to provide acceptable features for Cocoon so a new container was developed inside Cocoons CVS.
The new container was built with Cocoon in mind and did not follow the same semantics that the previous container did. Nor did it provide the features or a migration path for the rest of us who were not involved in Cocoon (in particular James). Whether you call this a fork is irrelevent. It was a new container that changed the rules that was developed outside of avalon-dev. Then it was decided to migrate it back from Cocoon to Avalon - first it went to framework CVS and then bounced to excalibur. I have no problem with the way it was developed and think diversity and choice are healthy for a community. I have no problem that it was developed there and I am glad we provided enough support for it to come back. We did make some choices that sucked technically primarily for Cocoons benefit - but as I said before. Many of Avalons successes are directly tied to successes in Cocoon - so I think it was worth it. It may be another year or two before we finally deprecate all the crappy code but the influx of developers and ideas has more than paid for the choices. And FWIW I never blocked the choices no matter how silly they were unless they had a negative impact on the rest of us. -- Cheers, Peter Donald -------------------------------- These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. -------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
