Peter Donald a �crit : > > At 11:01 19/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote: > >> * create new CVS for excalibur > > > >-1. By separating the utilities and excalibur into another CVS we are > raising > >the cost of using Avalon. As it is, we need to include two jars (LogKit and > >AvalonAPI), and adding another one for very little benefit seems like > overkill. > > One of the reasons Avalon is not used widely is because of it's monolithic > nature. Including 3 jars rather than 2 is not a hardship - I would actually > say it is easier. > <snip/>
Just to give my want-to-be-a-user opinion : I've been lurking this list for about 6 months now, coming to Avalon from Cocoon. I think Avalon is great, and I'd *really* like to use the component framework for my work because it standardizes component lifecycle, assembly and configuration. But I didn't made the step to actually use it because it's a so moving target : how many times did the package organization change over the last few weeks ? The component framework features seem somehow stabilized now, but the classes are moving around and around. Having 2, 3 or even a single big jar isn't a problem (Avalon's not so big). The real problem is naming stability. Hope you'll find this feeback useful. BTW, english isn't my native language, but I wonder if "Parametizable" is ok. Shouldn't it be spelled "Parameterizable" ? -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
