commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:09:26 GMT
Paulo Gaspar wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter Donald []
>>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:21 PM
>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
>>Avalon is no more or less coherent than Commons.
> Even if you say so, I keep thinking that Avalon is more 
> coherent than the commons in many respects.
> And I also think this is one of the reasons that makes it
> interesting to have both around.

I guess the coherency perceived is that all the components
in Avalon's Excalibur (since this is closest to Commons) all
have a purpose towards some level of server programming.  Some
were born from Matt Welsh's SEDA concepts (those are relatively
new), some were born from Cocoon, and yet others were born from
Phoenix and JAMES.  We borrow from our users, and our users
donate to us.  It's a good synergy.  That is where our coherency

I think Commons has a more diverse audience, and a different
perspective on things.

For instance, the Avalon community is sold on IOC and SOC (Inversion
of Control and Separation of Concerns).  Many commons committers have
their reservations about those patterns.  Those patterns do influence
all of our code.  Even the stuff that can be ripped out of Excalibur
and used completely apart from Avalon has those patterns in mind
when they were designed.  That is why you will rarely see static
factories for a piece in the system--everything is designed to be
externally managed.

I suppose there is another point of coherency.  But I'm just talking
now, so I'll shut up.


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin

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

View raw message