avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <leosim...@apache.org>
Subject Re: avalon-excalibur/lifecycle/src
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:26:17 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>>
>>> Berin:
>>>
>>> This should be under the avalon CVS, not excalibur.  It not a utility 
>>> - it's a couple of interfaces that define extensions to the framework 
>>> contract.
>>
>> :/  I don't think you are going to get consensus on that.  
> 
> Lets' discuss it and see.

consider it shown! I think Berin is making the right move :D

>> Esp. since
>> by the time we are done with handling these things, they might go
>> away.  
> 
> Sorry - I'm using extensions and I'm not about to drop support for 
> extensions.

yeah but that doesn't mean avalon as a whole is required to support 
extensions. Remember that this is alpha code which has not been subject 
to a release vote, so you should not assume consensus (just the lazy 
variant). Given the massive amount of discussions surrounding this 
stuff, I think it is safe to assume there isn't consensus.

If extensions are voted down, avalon is going to drop support for them. 
That would mean you would have to do your support for them elsewhere.

>> I understand your position, but in order to get a release RSN I
>> suggest going with the least radical path towards adoption. 
> 
> I'm tempted to say that this strategy will backfire.

why?

> Even we are 
> releasing the lifecycle package or not.  If we release it we should do 
> it properly.

why is releasing it as an independent package "improper"?

> Currently the avalon CVS contains the framework.  This does not mean 
> that framework is the only project at this level.  We have already 
> discussed the need to start work on the seperation of framework imp and 
> interfaces which means we will rapidly being seeing the emergence of at 
> least two projects in framework.  The lifecycle extension simply belong 
> at this level.  I am not suggesting that the extension interfaces be 
> included in framework - only that that the extension package belongs in 
> the avalon cvs - not excalibur.

I suggest we deal with cvs (re)structuring after "Excalibur phase III" 
and phoenix 4.1 have been released, at least. Right now more moving of 
packages will just cause further delays. We need to get to "release 
early release often".

- Leo



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


Mime
View raw message