avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylvain.wal...@anyware-tech.com>
Subject Re: Status of framework beta release?
Date Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:29:24 GMT

Peter Donald a écrit :
> At 11:01  19/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >> * create new CVS for excalibur
> >
> >-1.  By separating the utilities and excalibur into another CVS we are
> raising
> >the cost of using Avalon.  As it is, we need to include two jars (LogKit and
> >AvalonAPI), and adding another one for very little benefit seems like
> overkill.
> One of the reasons Avalon is not used widely is because of it's monolithic
> nature. Including 3 jars rather than 2 is not a hardship - I would actually
> say it is easier.

Just to give my want-to-be-a-user opinion : I've been lurking this list
for about 6 months now, coming to Avalon from Cocoon. I think Avalon is
great, and I'd *really* like to use the component framework for my work
because it standardizes component lifecycle, assembly and configuration.

But I didn't made the step to actually use it because it's a so moving
target : how many times did the package organization change over the
last few weeks ? The component framework features seem somehow
stabilized now, but the classes are moving around and around. Having 2,
3 or even a single big jar isn't a problem (Avalon's not so big). The
real problem is naming stability.

Hope you'll find this feeback useful.

BTW, english isn't my native language, but I wonder if "Parametizable"
is ok. Shouldn't it be spelled "Parameterizable" ?

Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com

To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message