> -----Original Message----- > From: J Aaron Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:49 PM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: Regarding The Avalon Framework > > The problem is, as we should all know by now, that there has > not been any really good definition of Avalon compliance. We > are working to fix that. But that doesn't mean we should > hide the old documentation or tell developers who have been > using Avalon for longer than Merlin existed that we're just > going to forget about them forever.
I'm not saying we should, but I do think we should have a team consensus of how that documentation should be presented to the Avalon users. I don't think that documentation should say or imply (directly or indirectly) that the Framework API is the point of Avalon compliancy. I would stand in the way of something presented in that fashion. In fact, I think if there is to be some explicit documentation of the Framework API on the new site, then we should make it VERY CLEAR that container compliancy with the Framework DOES NOT make the container Avalon-compliant. We could certainly use language of the sorts that communicates in the (near) future that standards defining Avalon-compliancy will be published and that will certainly mean that container will need to be compliant with more than just the Framework. Furthermore, we should make it very clear in that Merlin is the reference container implementation of Avalon, and future specifications and standards that define what Avalon-compliancy means will likely be built around the core interfaces that Merlin implements like the Framework, Avalon-Meta, etc. Regards, Timothy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
