> I have always viewed Avalon as a server platform, hence
> was bothered that it didn't have convenient/solid logging,
> usable error messages on configuration problems, no service
> installation feature, and etc...
I believe that those are things that Avalon would view as responsibilities
of a container, so you would be right to complain about things being missing
from, for example, Phoenix.
> the Avalon community IS looking at this project as primarily
> a way to make the IoC design pattern much easier to implement
> and use.
Perhaps, but when they implement pooling, threading, I/O packages, and all
of the other stuff, they are making a commitment, not just providing a proof
of concept.
> The servlet group rejected [mailets as servlets] then largely
> because servlets (HTTP) is a request/response model while
> mailets (SMTP) are a filtering/queuing/messaging model.
That's the same way I view it. Similar philosophically, but different where
the models are different.
> At this point I think following the same J2EE design patterns
> will allow us to get traction from that community even more.
In fact, we should probably invite Remy to participate as we incorporate
org.apache.naming, and I am beginning to think that it should eventually be
moved into Commons.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
