Mailing-List: contact dev-help@excalibur.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Excalibur Developers List" <dev@excalibur.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4215BCE2.8050200@it20one.at>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:01:06 +0100
From: Siegfried Goeschl <siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at>
Reply-To: siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at
Organization: IT20one GmbH
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Excalibur Developers List <dev@excalibur.apache.org>
Cc: Turbine Developers List <turbine-dev@jakarta.apache.org>,
	server-dev@james.apache.org
Subject: Re: The YAAFI Manifesto - WAS Re: Plans for Fulcrum release ....
References: <1108647297.6393.8.camel@zacarias>
	 <000001c51505$9520ed30$660111ac@sagunto>
 <7a31ebb305021715526cfc8bf0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a31ebb305021715526cfc8bf0@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080103090001080704080201"

--------------080103090001080704080201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Aron,

I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering 
badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James 
Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an 
Avalon-free JamesNG 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/) but my gut 
feeling is that it won't be an easy task.

As a casual  James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few ways to go

*) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom
*) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella
*) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of 
there choice for the migration process
*) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big Bang

I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is 
that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) -  but we have to keep the 
James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress and 
Fulcrum YAAFI.

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl


 Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that

J Aaron Farr wrote:

>Thanks for the clarifications.  I'm very interested in seeing what
>Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.
>
>  
>
>>I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of minutes.
>>It should be simple to make simple things.
>>    
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
>documentation and we can definitely make it more simple.  The goal of
>Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.
>
>So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
>component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?
>
>  
>


--------------080103090001080704080201
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Aron,<br>
<br>
I would like to point out that there is the James project suffering
badly from the Avalonic wars (hence the cross-posting to the James
Developer List). They recently had a long discussion to make an
Avalon-free JamesNG
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/">http://www.mail-archive.com/server-dev@james.apache.org/</a>) but my gut
feeling is that it won't be an easy task. <br>
<br>
As a casual&nbsp; James user and non-contributor I could imagine a few ways
to go<br>
<br>
*) stick with Phoenix or migrate to Loom<br>
*) make a transition to Fortress to stay under an ASF umbrella<br>
*) jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and use an Avalon container of
there choice for the migration process<br>
*) kick out Avalon, jump-start an Avalon-free JamesNG and go for Big
Bang<br>
<br>
I'm not sure what the current mood is - well, my first impression is
that removing Avalon make them very happy :-) -&nbsp; but we have to keep
the James community informed on our on-going work regarding Fortress
and Fulcrum YAAFI. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Siegfried Goeschl<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbsp;Maybe the James folks might be interested to hear that <br>
<br>
J Aaron Farr wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid7a31ebb305021715526cfc8bf0@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Thanks for the clarifications.  I'm very interested in seeing what
Excalibur can do to make things easier for the Turbine folks.

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I agree. You should be able to setup a container in a matter of minutes.
It should be simple to make simple things.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
Exactly.

IMHO Fortress is pretty simply already, but we need better
documentation and we can definitely make it more simple.  The goal of
Fortress 2.0 should be to make implementations like yaafi unnecessary.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, Fulcrum will become a more generic
component library not necessarily tied to Turbine, right?

  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------080103090001080704080201--