ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse Tilly <JTi...@hoteltools.com>
Subject RE: [Vote] Avalon-Framework integration
Date Tue, 08 May 2001 17:57:37 GMT
Peter,

My question is really just a request for further information.  Could you
reply with the 3-4 URLs that best describe the parts of the Avalon Framework
you're talking about?  A lot of us are probably at a disadvantage from not
working closely with Avalon through design and release, so you may be
thinking "it fits perfectly" whereas I'm thinking "why are we fitting
anything here".

It sounds promising, but I'd like a good synopsis of the features.  Thanks.

Jesse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 8:56 AM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [Vote] Avalon-Framework integration
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> For those of you who don't know I am a member of the Avalon 
> project. Avalon
> is a project that has two primary aims, developing components and
> developing a framework. 
> 
> I would like to reuse the framework part of avalon in ant. The primary
> reason is that most of the design patterns in the Avalon Framework are
> things that will be done in Ant. As the patterns are based on 
> extracting
> and cleaning designs from existing component based systems along with
> review of academic research I think they give a strong basis 
> to build upon.
> 
> Since early september last year I have slowly been getting 
> AvalonFramework
> compatible with what I see as Ant (which caused many a 
> flaming ;] ). If you
> look back at Avalons discussion archives you will see that things like
> Configuration was aligned with Ants TOM/ProxyTask, and the 
> container api
> took into consideration the constraints of Ant. So I think 
> that it would
> drastically simplify the building and management of Ant.
> 
> When I originally brought this up the reasons not to do it was;
> 1. Framework was still alpha
> 2. Framework was "server-orientated"
> 3. Framework was too big
> 4. Framework didn't "do" anything
> 5. Framework had poor docs
> 
> (2) is just plain false - my main use for the framework is geometry
> manipulation and building simulations (ie nothing to do with servers).
> 
> (1) was an issue but as of the 11th we will finally be going 
> beta - yea!!!!!!
> 
> framework with debugging information is 23 kb thus (3) is a non-issue.
> 
> (4) is the whole point of framework - it is not meant to do 
> anything ;)
> 
> (5) is still partially an issue - we have high level dos 
> describing the
> methodologies and low-level javadocs but no how-tos. Luckily 
> that will be
> our focus post 11th so within a few weeks this will be a non-issue.
> 
> If anyone has any queries about Avalon/Framework before 
> voting feel free to
> ask (or point out issues).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
> |              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> 

Mime
View raw message