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: CVS organization
Date Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:48:29 GMT

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>Shall we start it in a new clean "avalon" CVS module?
> 
>>We should be using a single CVS module, and I gather it's better to
>>start with it now for the STATUS file.
> 
> Can you explain why you believe that there is a need for a new one, and what
> you feel is a problem with the current structure?  

IMHO the current multi-repository division somewhat mirrors divisions in 
interest in the community and in knowledge about Avalon.

Wanting to "get together", and get to a single "Avalon", I reckon that a 
new fresh repository is best. As you have said, one thing is the 
framework and one thing are implementations. I would add that yet 
another thing are Components/Services. So it's not really about a single 
repository, but about a new one.

As it has been partially agreed on, but this still has to be fully 
discussed, there seems to be a need to:

  1) define more clearly the boundaries of framework, and make the new 
repository a base for the new Avalon V, by deciding package by package, 
class by class, what should go in there. The plans of Avalon5 should not 
be of a rewrite but of a more clear definition of the framework, 
especially with regards to info and meta concepts. We should really come 
to a common base here.

  2) move the Components in a "common" repository where also non-Avalon 
committers can partecipate easily. Be it in Apache Commons, in 
Avalon-Commons, or wherever, I still see a need for such a repository, 
that seems nice also for example to Turbine devs, OBJ devs, some Cocoon 
devs I've talked to.

  3) The containers that are in the works, as cool as they seem to be, 
are still scratchpad stuff, and thus should be clearly put in a place 
where it's clear to all. Current structure is really confusing, and 
releases are a very important part of our system.

  4) Phoenix IMHO is a special case for a container. It's stable, has a 
proven record and has a good user base. It seems sensible to keep it in 
a separate repository.

So basically we would have:
  - avalon (framework+tutorial+utils+containers)
  - avalon-phoenix (enterprise container)
  - commons/avalon or avalon/commons (components/services)

But still this is MHO, we need to discuss this.

> Parenthetically, what is the timeframe for Subversion?

It seems that Apache Commons wants to start with Subversion, and it's 
actually workable. Not sure that there is yet a defined timeframe.
Let's see if others lurking here have better knowledge.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Mime
View raw message