I took a look at all of the responses, sorted them, rationalized and normalized the replies, and found that 73% of responses are in favor of Fortress staying in Avalon with maintenance. Digging further into the numbers - we see something interesting that IMO goes much further into the why of the above question. If we look at the responses that ranked the topic "Enable migration to the single avalon platform" we see 83% asserting the subject as the top priority. Another significant point underlying this is multiple people stepped up and said they would be ready to support both maintenance and migration.
Key things for me that came out of the thread were the following:
1. the need to provide binary support for existing ECM and
Fortress styled components under the avalon runtime
platform 2. the need for functional equivalence for selector semantics
under the avalon runtime platform 3. the need for complete documentation on a transition process
(step-by-step) for developersOver the weekend I started playing around with an embedded Fortress facility that will enable binary support of ECM style components under the same runtime environment as standard avalon components. I'm still digging into Fortress container manager code to figure out an appropriate intercept point and will hopefully get some time this week to get something initial up-and-running. Point two is already in progress via the finder facility (just at the moment the real subject here is getting a specification of selection criteria sorted out).
Cheers, Stephen.
--
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest | |------------------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
