avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bennett, Timothy (JIS/Applications)" <TimothyBenn...@jis.nashville.org>
Subject RE: Technical Concerns over AF4.2
Date Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:51:46 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farr, Aaron [mailto:Aaron.Farr@am.sony.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:28 AM
> To: 'Avalon Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Technical Concerns over AF4.2
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
> >
> > Is framework a product - no - it's just part of the 
> specification of a 
> > evolving component model.
> I've used the framework jar in more than one product in isolation.
> Sometimes it is just to use the configuration api (which I 
> happen to like a lot).  Sometimes it is to reuse Avalon 
> components in a non-Avalon application (that is, I still need 
> to have the framework jar in my other app due to lifecycle 
> interface imports).  Sometimes I end up writing something 
> that uses Avalon lifecycles but isn't a container per say 
> (like JingDAO).
> All these are cases of using the Avalon framework jar as an 
> independent library without regard to specifications or 
> whatnot.  In other words, being used as a "product" 
> independent of any other Avalon container or software.
> And I know I'm not the only one.
> Therefore to me and to the users and developers I work with, 
> the framework should be a product.

And so do I. And that's not what is disputed here.  What you, I, or anyone
else uses the framework for does not HAVE to drive how we promote and market
Avalon, and the terminology we use.  If we decide (and we have by past
votes) that framework is part of the Avalon specification and that products
constitutes a RI container and tools and maybe other stuff, the we should be
free to do without be influence by how users will use the bits and pieces.
In fact, we can't fathom how users will use the bits and pieces of the
*product* now or in the future.  You, I, and other have the freedom to use
the bits to our hearts content, and Avalon won't rain on anyone's parade.
However, to tailor how we promote, categorize, name, our artifacts based on
how others use them seems backwards to me and precedent that we can't
possibly maintain.

If I borrow a carburetor off an old Ford to build some contraption, do I
petition Ford to make carburetors an official publicly-recognized Ford
product?  No, that's ridiculous. Ford may make carburetors, but the product
is the '82 Thunderbird that I lifted it off.  Just because I choose to use
the carburetor as a product in the building of my contraption, doesn't
require Ford to start pushing carburetors has Ford products. To me and my
contraption, the reality is that the carburetor is a product, but I'd be one
presumptious character to demand that Ford market their Thunderbird
carburetors as a product.

The only difficulty that I see we have is that Ford NEVER promoted
carburetors as a product. Avalon in the past has promoted framework as a
product, and that felt nice and comfortable to the Avalon leadership of that
day.  But now, there is the Avalon avant-garde that says Avalon isn't just
making carburetors anymore, we're making Thunderbirds, and as such, it makes
no sense to call a carburetor a product anymore. All you guys (including
myself) that use the framework as product, no problem!  Go for it!  But
we're not calling it a product anymore.  If you use as product, then it's a
product to you.  Great.  Knock yourself out!  But, we're just no longer
going to officially CALL it a product.

And the new web site is a new, tangible realization of the Avalon
avant-garde, and a manifestation that the names of things have been changed
because we're building Thunderbirds now.

-- Timothy

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

View raw message