commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Commons/Avalon [was Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release]
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:01:20 GMT
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:38, wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:11, wrote:
> > > Is there a fundamental clash of philosophies between the two that is
> > > yet to be resolved? Is it resolvable?
> >
> > The main difference is that you should not be able to vote on things you
> > are not a developer on. Other than that it is largely window dressing
> > differences.
> I'm not sure I get this. A patch to a system makes sense, the developers
> on a project will not want a bad patch or a misplaced patch to be added.

Not sure what you mean. I as a non-contributing, non-user get voting rights 
over something like logging - does that seem like a good idea?

> But a new release of something, or even a new project will nearly always
> be voted for by the developers as +1? Where's the controlling negative
> factor?

Who needs a negative factor - the community decides what is crap and what is 
good and you would be surprised at how many developers wont support new 
releases if it is a bad idea. New projects are slightly different.

> > > My understanding so far is that Avalon is a standard framework for
> > > server-side applications, providing a set of common components to
> > > assist in that framework.
> > >
> > > And that Commons is a set of common components for use in any
> > > framework.
> >
> > Well you understanding is wrong ;) But quite a few people have made an
> > active effort to make you believe that so it is forgiveable. The majority
> > of Avalons components are framework agnostic or have framework agostic
> > base classes.
> I'm happy to believe that. Good coders like to do that kinda thing and I
> expect Apache coders to be good coders. I guess the difference is more in
> the stated target of those components? As a dumb component user, would I
> be likely to come across an Avalon component and think of using it
> separate from the whole structure?


> Are Commons and Avalon different marketing ploys?

largely. The struts community needed somewhere to extract components that 
could be shared with TC and so forth - they didn't want to play with others, 
thus commons was created. 



"Therefore it can be said that victorious warriors 
win first, and then go to battle, while defeated 
warriors go to battle first, and then seek to win." 
              - Sun Tzu, the Art Of War

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message