avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Berin Loritsch" <blorit...@citi-us.com>
Subject RE: Cornerstone / AltRMI
Date Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:37:43 GMT
> From: Leo Simons [mailto:leosimons@apache.org]
> Hey gang,
> I do not feel like adding merlin-specific meta descriptors (which is
> what .xprofile & friends are atm) to a package and then releasing that
> package. Reason 1: merlin is alpha. Reason 2: the descriptors are
> merlin-specific.

I agree.

> I am not particularly in favour of adding phoenix-specific meta
> descriptors to a package either, for the reason that they are
> phoenix-specific. However, phoenix is our only release status 
> container
> within which it is actually easy to run most of the cornerstone stuff
> (IIUC), and it is not easy to run the cornerstone stuff in phoenix
> without the descriptors, hence they are a "neccessary evil".

Again, I agree.

> I suggest we release cornerstone with the phoenix-specific descriptors
> and nothing else. As we have already agreed that we need to support
> current phoenix users (which includes support for phoenix 
> metadata) and
> phoenix-targetted components in future developments, it should be
> trivial to support cornerstone via that same route as well.

That is what I was getting at earlier.  You just happened to say it

> IOW, I don't think adding more meta descriptors gets 
> cornerstone into a
> "container-neutral" state, it is just adding support for more
> "non-standard" containers. Avalon is not at a point where
> "container-neutral metadata" is a reality, or likely to be 
> there anytime
> soon (as in we'll probably take a few months). For 
> cornerstone, stick to
> "minimal metadata targetting released avalon products" and provide a
> migration path to "container-neutral metadata" once we define
> "container-neutral metadata".


> All that said, this is IMHO and I don't consider this issue a release
> blocker; I definately don't want to spend countless days 
> arguing whether
> we should or should not distribute those 10 xml files. For the general
> case, I stick by my "use only released code and concepts in releases".
> If this stuff does need to go in, mark it as "experimental".

Right.  I would like to assert that MetaData needs to be tracked with
the source code.  If that means the MetaData is described via JavaDoc
tags, then great.  If there is another way to do it just as easily, then
great.  Bottom line is right now, Cornerstone is used by released projects,
has been around for ever and a day, and really needs to be released.
We can move to a container neutral position later.

> Note that for longer term I still believe that cornerstone 
> should become
> out-of-scope and the components it contain IMHO should go someplace
> "common". Different issue though.


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