Re: Avalon - moving away from ?

[Paul Hammant]

Steve
No disagreement in principle. Refactoring the bulk of James into POJOs would
be a good thing. 

Refactoring the bulk of James to also have POJO capability ... (we'd not 
be taking avalon capability).

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 would be pro-change for killer reason such as:
- If there was a definative statement that the Avalon approach is about to
be deprecated, flip its mortal coil, or whatever. But that isn't the current
state of play as I understand it. Or am I missing something?
 

Avalon has a multiple year life at Apache. However, the wider industry 
is more enamoured with the Dependency Injector forms of IoC. Running 
inside Spring/PicoContainer or Geronimo alongside other comps must be a 
good thing right?

[ migration arguments snipped ]
 

This is an enabler, not migration. We're facilitating alternate 
deployment capabilities, not closing off current ones.

As it would happen, I think the starting point is Cornerstone rather 
than James. Again as an enabler.

- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]