Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 86606 invoked by uid 500); 21 Apr 2001 02:03:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: "Avalon Development" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 86386 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 02:03:15 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010421024649.00efbb10@mail.alphalink.com.au> X-Sender: gdonald@mail.alphalink.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 02:46:49 +1000 To: "Avalon Development" From: Peter Donald Subject: RE: [vote] Excalibur CVS Cc: "Avalon Development" In-Reply-To: <000001c0c9af$d0798ae0$0a01a8c0@osm.net> References: <3AE03F22.D8EFFFD5@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 05:37 20/4/01 +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote: >Can I just confirm a couple of things - >perhaps its just me sifting through what is noise and what is serious.... >but I would appreciate confirmation of the following two points: > > 1. there was a proposed creating a new CVS to which there was uniform > disagreement ... therefore, I am presuming that it now off the agenda > (after all, this is an open process - and votes count) It has been vetoed ... wait a few months and I will surely bring it up again though ;) > 2. I'm assuming the "veto" comment was off-the-cuff and should not be > taken seriously ... (but if I'm wrong, then there is a very serious > issue!) No it was serious. I have already accepted change that I don't think are 100% optimal. My opinion is that there should be nothing in org.apache.avalon.* namespace (bad advertising). It is much better to make everything in other namespaces but use advertising to get message across about where it is from (ie AvalonFramework or avalon-framework as name of jars). I also don't like idea of merging in components+aut code, nor merging framework code and component code etc. The implementation-interface non-separation is also a little yucky but not something that I think is worth persuing yet. All in all I have made many a compromise to try to bring Avalon to beta ... and I was willing to support it as such. However a straw can break a camels back ;) 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------* --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org