Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-avalon-dev-archive@avalon.apache.org Received: (qmail 54955 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2003 18:26:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@avalon.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 dev@avalon.apache.org Received: (qmail 54813 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 18:26:48 -0000 Received: from onramp.i95.net (205.177.132.17) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 May 2003 18:26:48 -0000 Received: from apache.org ([66.208.12.130]) by onramp.i95.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h49IQp07025317 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 14:26:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3EBBF325.80806@apache.org> Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 14:27:49 -0400 From: Berin Loritsch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: [RT] Avalon Bundles/Distribution Units References: <3EBBC557.7040305@apache.org> In-Reply-To: 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 Leo Simons wrote: > Berin Loritsch wrote: > >> I have been giving this some more thought, and after looking at >> ..NET assemblies, > > > > >> Thoughts, comments? > > > nice SoC, some valuable observations. > > I've been looking into .Net internals some more as well. The more I > think about this, the more I believe what we are basically trying to do > is add everything from the .Net framework but C# and the class library > to java. > > The obvious thing we should address is "why not just use .Net?" > > An answer might be "because we need to do this in an existing java > environment". > > If that is the sole reason, we might still benefit from compatibility > with at least the concepts of .Net. IOW, Copy the .Net semantics on the > things you mentioned, 1-to-1, where applicable. Disregarding the shared > assembly concept for now (which is add-on extra work), we could copy > over versioning scheme, configuration layout & general format, location, > tool setup and typical usage, the configuration override and extension > mechanisms.......dunno. > > why not just use .Net? :) Two reasons: 1) We do not have a core competency in .NET yet. 2) We might want to use concepts from other systems like Mac Bundles or OSGI active DUs and improve on the core concepts. We don't have a core competency in .NET because there is no Java.NET implementation that is free, and the J# crap from M$ still isn't free. We don't have free access to C# compilers and libraries to be able to start developing that competency. We do have a start of the Avalon port to C# in our CVS, but the person who started developing it hasn't done anything in a long time, and sad to say I don't have $100 to shell out on C#.NET to play with it. I *should* be getting a corporate version of it RSN, but that has been in the pipeline for a couple of weeks now. Also, by providing these facilities to Java programmers would really help out a larger group of people. One question that also begs to be asked is if this is something that is generic enough to develop in Jakarta Commons, and extend it here. -- "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, The Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. And the 3 most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon' (sic)". -----Chris Rock --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org