On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Darrell DeBoer wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 04:45, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >>Nobody is proposing to stop Phoenix development, Peter. Stop crying. > > > > Ummm, Stefano, you might want to read the entire content of the emails > > you send. This one seems self-contradictory. Or just a troll. > > > > (from further up you email) > > > >>>On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:30, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >>>>We are discussing about a new single container with profiles, wouldn't > >>>>be better to put all further development on hold, switch to > >>>> maintainance mode and focus on that? > > > > Sounds like someone proposing to stop Phoenix development to me. > > Nicola proposed to put on hold 'further development' of Phoenix. Which > (at least to me) means: let's top having containers as playgrounds for > framework-related stuff that should be discussed and voted by the avalon > development community. > > My response was that nobody here is proposing to 'shut down phoenix' and > stop its development and leave all the phoenix users with nothing to > work on and without bugs to be fixed. > > So, one thing is 'development', another thing is 'further development'. > But you're right, it wasn't clear, so thanks for asking me to clarify. > > What I want to see ending is the use of containers to implement stuff > that influence Avalon as a framework and create 'dialects' of framework > usage. > > This is what Nicola is proposing to stop. > > This is what I agree on. > > If the community agrees on this proposal, Phoenix (and all the other > containers controlled by the Avalon development community) will > implement what the Avalon community decides and all the > framework-related decisions will have to go thru community consensus. > > This will, hopefully, reduce current Avalon 'balkanization'. > > If the community agrees on this proposal and single developers want to > go ahead without community consensus they can: > > 1) follow the rules of revolutionaries > > 2) go somewhere else > > There is no other alternative around here. > > All avalon developers must understand that.
Thanks for the clarification. I must say that as a James developer and a Phoenix user, I'm really against any proposal that would slow down the provision of new and *necessary* features in Phoenix. We waited a *long* time for a stable, released version of Phoenix. And it's great, but we want more. We want to be allow developers to simply "drop-in" a mailet jar file with some config and for it to just work. I personally want it to be easier to compose components of finer grained sub-components. These sorts of features probably require new features (like auto-assembly) for Phoenix. We're about to commence on a bunch of new developments in James, and I for one want to continue on top of the stable base we've got today. But I don't want to be told we need to switch to a new, alpha container, and wait for the talk-fest to be over. Please don't force us to fork Phoenix internally (or somewhere else) to get the features we need. (No, this isn't a threat, or even likely. But I'd vote +1 if I *really* had to.) I'd hate to see us lose the support of Peter D, Paul H, Eung Ju, Leo S and the other Phoenix devs, who have provided so much support over time. This is Open-Source, right? We do this for fun, a challenge, and to make the world a better place. Let's not make it harder than it has to be. -- cheers, Darrell DeBoer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
