avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Regarding The Avalon Framework
Date Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:14:19 GMT
J Aaron Farr wrote:

> Bennett, Timothy (JIS/Applications) wrote:
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Farr, Aaron [mailto:Aaron.Farr@am.sony.com] 
> 
> 
>> ...And here is the thing that some of us can't seem to grasp... What 
>> does it
>> mean to be Avalon-compliant?  It is NOT merely compliant with the 
>> framework
>> API.  The MAJOR issue IMO is that if I (or any Avalon user) writes a 
>> Avalon
>> component, then I expect it drop seemlessly into ANY *Avalon-compliant*
>> container and it work straight-up without any modifications.  For that to
>> happen, Avalon-compliancy must encompass more than just framework
>> compatibility.  It must include standards for meta and such.
> 
> 
> The problem is, as we should all know by now, that there has not been 
> any really good definition of Avalon compliance.  

 From the framework level - yes - your absolutely right.  That's why we 
have the meta package and a bunch of solid documentation.  With 
Excalibur off on its own and avalon focused on a single product strategy 
that has opened the door to some long overdue consolidation.  But that 
documentation together are guess what - you start to see a good 
definition and yes - that going to scare a few people because the 
definition fills in the blanks.

> We are working to fix 
> that.  But that doesn't mean we should hide the old documentation or 
> tell developers who have been using Avalon for longer than Merlin 
> existed that we're just going to forget about them forever.

What documentation?  Please point me to the old documentation on 
constructor assumptions.  Please point me to the old documentation about 
standard context entries.  Wait - woops - there isn't any.  OK - how are 
going to go about not-hiding things that don't exist?

> I'm not saying we need to continue to support all these old semantics. 
> I'm just saying we should document them.  Heck, I'm not even saying 
> "we", I'm saying "I" will document them and the documentation belongs 
> here in Avalon.

+1 assuming it's within the current product documentation as part of the 
the overall platform specification and not as something additional or 
separate.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin                       |
| Production by Avalon                  |
|                                       |
| http://avalon.apache.org              |
|---------------------------------------|

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


Mime
View raw message