Back to Avalon...

[Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>]

on the JAMES list: 2/2/01 3:07 AM, "Charles Benett"
<ch...@benett1.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> (FYI - Avalon is splitting, probably, into 3 packages: org.apache.avalon
> - the design framework and utilities, org.apache.phoenix - the server
> kernel based on avalon designs, and org.apache.cornerstone - commonly
> required services and blocks implementing them for use in phoenix
> servers. I see James using all three packages and their subpackages)



Ok, I'm seeing other people discuss this without any sort of final decision
here, so I think we need to get back on topic. So far, top level package
names are expressly reserved for top level projects.

I would be +1 for something like this:

org.apache.avalon
org.apache.avalon.phoenix
org.apache.avalon.cornerstone

thanks,

-jon

Re: Back to Avalon...

[Charles Benett <Ch...@benett1.demon.co.uk>]

Jon Stevens wrote:
> 
> on the JAMES list: 2/2/01 3:07 AM, "Charles Benett"
> <ch...@benett1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > (FYI - Avalon is splitting, probably, into 3 packages: org.apache.avalon
> > - the design framework and utilities, org.apache.phoenix - the server
> > kernel based on avalon designs, and org.apache.cornerstone - commonly
> > required services and blocks implementing them for use in phoenix
> > servers. I see James using all three packages and their subpackages)

(Which is just a description of the Avalon-3.1a1 release, which other
James users/devs need)

> Ok, I'm seeing other people discuss this without any sort of final decision
> here, so I think we need to get back on topic. So far, top level package
> names are expressly reserved for top level projects.
> 
> I would be +1 for something like this:
> 
> org.apache.avalon
> org.apache.avalon.phoenix
> org.apache.avalon.cornerstone
> 

But:
1) The org.apache.avalon.* code has far wider applicability than its use
in phoenix, so at some point avalon should become two or three separate
top-level projects.
2) Changing the package names later (ie when the projects split) would
lead to unhappy users of the code, and may put off new adopters
3) Not changing the package names now leaves us with very deep package
hierarchies, which can confuse new adopters
So: lets move to the new packages now.

Charles

Re: Back to Avalon...

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

hi,

At 02:06  2/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Then you should be suggesting another top level project be created instead
>of creating a pseudo project that is half within Avalon and half within the
>top level namespace.
>
>Just like there is for Jetspeed.

No one else commented on this from PMC so I guess this is general consensus?

ie. 1 Project == 1 Product.

When any project grows such that there is multiple products they should be
split off into multiple projects. Personally I don't see the advantage of
splitting a community like that - especially when the split off project may
not have enough momentum to survive. 

While I don't really like the idea of splitting Avalon at the moment if
it's the only option to move forward then so be it ;) To propose the split
do I just go back to Avalon and try to get consensus via vote and then
reapproach here with a proposal? If so does the proposal have to be formal
or can it be informal?

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*

Re: Back to Avalon...

[Federico Barbieri <sc...@betaversion.org>]

Jon Stevens wrote:
> 
> on 2/2/01 12:27 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > At 11:10  2/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
> >> Ok, I'm seeing other people discuss this without any sort of final decision
> >> here, so I think we need to get back on topic. So far, top level package
> >> names are expressly reserved for top level projects.
> >
> > Well not every one seems to obey it. Examples include catalina (3 top level
> > names - catalina, naming, jasper), James (mailet, james). I am sure I could
> > for more examples if I looked ;)
> 
> I personally obey it and as someone at the PMC level, then I see my job as
> being to encourage you and others to obey it as well. Two wrongs don't make
> a right. I personally think that the namespace for Tomcat should really be:
> 
> org.apache.tomcat
> org.apache.tomcat.naming
> org.apache.tomcat.jasper (at least until it is split out of the Servlet API)
> 
> Catalina itself should live within the Tomcat namespace since it is simply a
> revolution that has already been voted to become Tomcat.
> 
> For a perfect example of this, I created Anakia which is used as the basis
> to power our website. I placed Anakia within org.apache.velocity.anakia and
> created a small documentation page for Anakia within the Velocity project.
> 
> There are several things within Turbine that could be spun out as separate
> projects as well such as Torque, DB connection pool, Intake, etc...however,
> I haven't found the need so far to do that...(although, it is starting to
> become more clear there is a need for that)...
> 
> >> I would be +1 for something like this:
> >>
> >> org.apache.avalon
> >> org.apache.avalon.phoenix
> >> org.apache.avalon.cornerstone
> >
> > I would be -1 for it ;) The reason is we are just moving away from this.
> > The reason is that the base framework is used by phoenix rather than
> > phoenix being a part of avalon. I would put it in the same acceptability as
> > mandating "org.apache.turbine.jetspeed" as Jetspeed uses Turbine.
> 
> Then you should be suggesting another top level project be created instead
> of creating a pseudo project that is half within Avalon and half within the
> top level namespace.
> 
> Just like there is for Jetspeed.
> 

not sure... from Peter point of view phoenix is one possible kernel
implementation exactly as cocoon is (uses avalon as scheleton) as James
(is a block but a mailet container/engine too) and as turbine or
jetspeed could be. Remember avalon is not by any mean related to the
idea of Block. It's just a set of abstract design patterns and some
utils.

Right now I'm +0.5 for peter proposal. But I don't want this to stop
avalon from moving.

Federico Barbieri
<fe...@apache.org>

Re: Back to Avalon...

[Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>]

on 2/2/01 12:27 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:

> At 11:10  2/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>> Ok, I'm seeing other people discuss this without any sort of final decision
>> here, so I think we need to get back on topic. So far, top level package
>> names are expressly reserved for top level projects.
> 
> Well not every one seems to obey it. Examples include catalina (3 top level
> names - catalina, naming, jasper), James (mailet, james). I am sure I could
> for more examples if I looked ;)

I personally obey it and as someone at the PMC level, then I see my job as
being to encourage you and others to obey it as well. Two wrongs don't make
a right. I personally think that the namespace for Tomcat should really be:

org.apache.tomcat
org.apache.tomcat.naming
org.apache.tomcat.jasper (at least until it is split out of the Servlet API)

Catalina itself should live within the Tomcat namespace since it is simply a
revolution that has already been voted to become Tomcat.

For a perfect example of this, I created Anakia which is used as the basis
to power our website. I placed Anakia within org.apache.velocity.anakia and
created a small documentation page for Anakia within the Velocity project.

There are several things within Turbine that could be spun out as separate
projects as well such as Torque, DB connection pool, Intake, etc...however,
I haven't found the need so far to do that...(although, it is starting to
become more clear there is a need for that)...

>> I would be +1 for something like this:
>> 
>> org.apache.avalon
>> org.apache.avalon.phoenix
>> org.apache.avalon.cornerstone
> 
> I would be -1 for it ;) The reason is we are just moving away from this.
> The reason is that the base framework is used by phoenix rather than
> phoenix being a part of avalon. I would put it in the same acceptability as
> mandating "org.apache.turbine.jetspeed" as Jetspeed uses Turbine.

Then you should be suggesting another top level project be created instead
of creating a pseudo project that is half within Avalon and half within the
top level namespace.

Just like there is for Jetspeed.

-jon

Re: Back to Avalon...

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

At 11:10  2/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Ok, I'm seeing other people discuss this without any sort of final decision
>here, so I think we need to get back on topic. So far, top level package
>names are expressly reserved for top level projects.

Well not every one seems to obey it. Examples include catalina (3 top level
names - catalina, naming, jasper), James (mailet, james). I am sure I could
for more examples if I looked ;)

>I would be +1 for something like this:
>
>org.apache.avalon
>org.apache.avalon.phoenix
>org.apache.avalon.cornerstone

I would be -1 for it ;) The reason is we are just moving away from this.
The reason is that the base framework is used by phoenix rather than
phoenix being a part of avalon. I would put it in the same acceptability as
mandating "org.apache.turbine.jetspeed" as Jetspeed uses Turbine.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*