avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Let's get real: let's make Avalon 5 the real stable Avalon (was Re: [Summary] Avalon 5 ComponentManager interface)
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:20:11 GMT

Leo Simons wrote:
>>Don't have time to reply ATM, but you have been a bit pricky on my term 
>>I know what Avalon Framework is, I know that one thing is documentation 
>>and code-implementation, I have written a GUI framework on top of it, I 
>>know Cocoon since 1.7, and IMHO the way you have replied gives credit to 
>>what I wrote.
>>I was writing as a user, you have replied as an *Avalon* programmer ;-)
>>Bad luck, you scared me away; better luck next time ;-P
> You write with a "[VOTE]" in the subject, to the development list,
> having committer status to avalon. I didn't figure out you were writing
> as a user. Even if I did, I would let it show <innocent blink/>, because
> others might not have figured it out.


Till some time back I was only a user, so sometimes it shows.
I was behind the barricades feeling like Avalon was a sort of ivory 
tower, and heard the same remark from many guys.

I know it's not the case, and I would really like that it shows...

> You stated more or less that avalon 4 is not stable.
> This is bad for avalon, for users of avalon, for me, my company.

... and of course, my stupid ranted proposal had the opposite effect, as 
you kindly point out. Sorry :-/

> Thus my reply. It is vital to not have anyone think that avalon is not
> quite as stable as it claims to be.

Ok, I was messy. The problem comes with older Avalon, between Avalon 
major versions, and having to deal with dev versions.

Avalon is so cool, that many projects just start using dev stuff, and it 
gives bad pubblicity to a family of products that is really stable.

I want this stability to remain in the switch to the new version, and 
hope that the 5 version can bring more *percieved* stability, hence the 
reference to docs, examples and reference implementations.

> I recognize that avalon can use better documentation (I don't think more
> of it would really be very good - there's loads), but as your e-mail had
> a subject possibly indicating that avalon 4 is not "real stable", and
> your e-mail contains statements such as
> "stability was never seen in avalon"
> "I would REALLY like to see AF 5 be a big fat bugfix release"

Oops, my cyclical recurring "don't reread the mail bug" :-/

What I meant:
"Stability of interfaces and package names has been giving problems to 
Avalon developers between some major Avalon releases.
I hope that we can change package names and interface names as little as 
possible, concentrating on the conceptual inefficiencies that we 
internally percieve as bugs, like the Component interface and other 
marker interfaces, rather than creating more stuff."

> I hope you will forgive me for not mentioning that indeed our
> documentation is not very easy to digest and instead concentrating on
> indicating that these statements are unfounded.

My bad.

> If you would just have said: "I would like to see avalon have better
> documentation", you'd get a "me too", and any patches/commits that'd
> provide such documentation would be very welcome (you'd get a "you
> rock").

Personally I understand the difficulty, since I have problems in 
documenting Centipede. It's really hard, I know.

I will commit some images, I think that they speak a thousand words.

> call me pricky if you like =)



You were only correct, I hope I explained myself now.

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

View raw message