This might come across as being a bit bombastic, but there are points in there, honest.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Berin Loritsch wrote: > I am proposing to the Avalon team to drop Excalibur IO in favor of > Commons IO. That way it is less for us to maintain--and it is a > library, not a component. The part of this I disagree with is the 'less for us to maintain'. The way Commons is meant to work I thought was that the projects who donated code in were the ones who maintained it. Now, one 'legal' reason why Avalon would not be involved in maintaining the code: "The Commons Proper is a place for collaboration and sharing, where developers from throughout the Jakarta community can work together on projects to be shared by the Jakarta projects and Jakarta users. " Now, Avalon isn't in Jakarta now right? However, that's really just something that Commons needs to fix about its self-description. > As far as I know all functionality is merged in. Our users do need > an official replacement which can only happen when there is a Commons > IO release. One of the reasons that there's been no release of IO is that [as the only person kicking IO stuff around afaik] I've been waiting until there were unit-tests for the code in there [and shuffling package names a bit so that it has space to grow] and writing the unit-tests takes time, especially as I'm being a typical Java coder and thinking I can make a framework as nice as the Collections unit-test framework. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
