commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo.gas...@krankikom.de>
Subject RE: Commons/Avalon [was Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release]
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:16:58 GMT
> 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 will go back to the Avalon list to continue our discussion 
about this one as soon as I have a bit more time.

Anyway, IMO Avalon components have MUCH LESS dependencies from
the framework that outsiders seem to imagine. (Often just marker
interfaces.)

However, even those little bits could be removed.

BTW, I found that Peter had a quite positive attitude towards
removing those dependency bits.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:16 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: Commons/Avalon [was Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging
> 1.0 Release]
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:11, bayard@generationjava.com 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.
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Go back to the initial discussions about commons and you will see 
> that its 
> current structure was advocated by an AValon developer and that 
> is based on 
> the structure of the Avalon component repository ;)
> 
> > Avalon predates Commons, but has a less bazaar like atmosphere(?).
> 
> I wouldn't say that. Most things are go there. We have had different 
> implementations of things at different times (4 pool architectures 
> simultaneously were present) but the only difference is that in 
> the end we 
> tend to work together more and merge bits together.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> Whatever you do will be insignificant, 
> but it is very important that you do it. 
>                               --Gandhi
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message