Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 9534 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2002 19:23:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 19:23:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 12978 invoked by uid 97); 12 Jun 2002 19:23:37 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12962 invoked by uid 97); 12 Jun 2002 19:23:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12950 invoked by uid 98); 12 Jun 2002 19:23:36 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Message-ID: <3D079EEB.9090700@apache.org> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:20:11 +0200 From: Nicola Ken Barozzi Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Let's get real: let's make Avalon 5 the real stable Avalon (was Re: [Summary] Avalon 5 ComponentManager interface) References: <1023894652.1872.305.camel@lsd.bdv51> <3D0765C7.5030602@apache.org> <1023896875.1870.377.camel@lsd.bdv51> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Leo Simons wrote: >>Don't have time to reply ATM, but you have been a bit pricky on my term >>usage. >>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 , 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 =) ;-) hehehe You were only correct, I hope I explained myself now. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: