> > From another way of looking, there is only Avalon, and multiple
> > packages that it ships. Avalon should bee responsible as a
> > community for all of the changes it makes, and the changes it
> > imposes upon client code.
> That may be true, but PLEASE stop using the term Avalon like it were a
> jar. Newbies pick up on and use it further.
Actually, I was pretty specific about the fact that there are multiple
packages (jars). But the context in which I used the word Avalon was in
reference to what should be a single Community, rather than an association
of developers sharing a CVS repository. When you start dividing the
community around whose jar file is getting gored, then we have a problem.
> Peter did some investigation (after we were pasted and pasted each other
> in the list) and was fairly sure that the Composable->Serviceable issue
> should not ultimately affect JAMES because the Phoenix implementation of
> Serviceable returns Components (capaital C) even when the service
> offered did not.
Yes, from what Peter said, he made an effort in Phoenix to return the right
thing as a runtime issue, and I do appreciate that effort.
The problem, Paul, is that some signatures changed and *THAT* is preventing
compilation. Check the log from Sam Ruby's post, and you'll see. :-)
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
