avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@d-haven.org>
Subject Re: Technical Concerns over AF4.2
Date Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:10:08 GMT
Bennett, Timothy (JIS/Applications) wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Farr, Aaron [mailto:Aaron.Farr@am.sony.com] 

<snip>

>>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.

<snip>

If I may, we can all come up with examples that support our positions.

Using your example, to bring the analogy, Avalon used to be in the 
business of selling car parts.  Sure we had a couple different built 
cars that were designed for different things.  We had a beater car used 
for around the towning, a sports car for faster operation, and a luxury 
vehicle.  These were really to show off the car parts more than anything 
else.

Now, Avalon wants to be in the luxury car business.  That's not a 
problem.  The problem is the apparent discontinuation of the star 
product that kept people coming to Avalon in the first place.

The argument that I keep getting is that Avalon still makes that star 
product, its just packaged with allot of other things.  There is 
customer demand to keep having that star product by itself as it has in 
the past.  Any sane company would recognize the demand and capitalize on 
it.  It promotes good will which in turn becomes long term profits.

What surprises me is how adamant it seems that this project wants to 
kill any of the good will it had risking everything on the new venture. 
  I wish you all well in the new venture, but I am representing the 
demand for the star product.  Can't you continue to promote your product 
until there is either no demand for it?

You see, if Avalon doesn't continue to "sell" its star product 
(framework), then what happens is the after market and refurbishing 
shops come into play and Avalon no longer gets any of the profit.  In 
short, Framework would have to be forked over in Excalibur (we're still 
Apache so there is no need to change package names) and continue 
refurbishing the Framework product.  That would suck for both of us.

Hopefully this helps put things in a light we can all understand.

-- 

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to 
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to 
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
                 - Rich Cook


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


Mime
View raw message