> Refactoring the bulk of James into POJOs would be a good thing.
> Just not good enough on technical merit alone. I don't see a
> 'killer' reason. Without one I cannot see why effort should be
> diverted from enhancing James up to v3 as previously envisaged.
I said that first off, but if Paul is willing to put in the effort, that is
OK with me. Please note that the long delayed code merger (I've been
working on it today) is almost entirely due to container contract changes
made by Avalon. I would like us to be more independent of that treadmill.
> - If there was a definative statement that the Avalon approach is about to
> be deprecated, flip its mortal coil, or whatever.
Avalon is in quite a state of upheaval and flux. I hope that something
healthy will emerge, but cannot assume that there won't be contract changes
as it goes forward.
Paul's efforts would be, at the least, bet hedging.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
