[Avalon4/5] Context - Post mortem

[Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>]

All,

the Context vote is over, and I thought I'd list the issues that
were pushed forward.

Some issues are basically smaller changes to the text that were
held off during the vote with the intention to deal with them
quickly afterwards, some are greater things that will probably 
result in a proposal/vote of their own.

Issues not marked as being for A5 are for A4.

                             -oOo-

MINOR ISSUES

I hope we can get these sorted quickly. I have included my own
comments to these.

1. The warning:

    Warning: A component that specifies this requirement will 
             not be as portable as one that doesn't. Few containers
             support it. It is therefore discouraged for components
             to require a castable context.

   Should be changed to:

    Warning: A component that specifies this requirement will 
             not be as portable as one that doesn't. It is 
             therefore discouraged for components to require a 
             castable context.

   That is, the "Few containers..." sentence should be removed.

   COMMENT: This changes the wording but not the meaning of the text.
            I wouldn't mind changing the text: Even though I think it
            is correct given the current state of Avalon4, removing 
            the sentence makes it a little bit more future-proof 
            without changing the meaning.

2. The sample XML:

   Please see:

   a. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103986161630501&w=2

   b. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103986364631363&w=2

   c. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103986420731587&w=2

   d. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103986568532139&w=2

   (This is part of the greater metainfo DTD issue as well.)

   COMMENT: Can this wait until we have the DTD sorted? The sample
            XML will change then anyway.

3. The changes I made to the text when Javadoc:ing it:

   a. I moved the initial note down one sentence. Having a 
      "Note: ..." as the short description of the Context 
      interface seemed bad.

   b. I eliminated the note that said: "The proposal does not cover 
      the DTD, nor does it require that the entries are defined in 
      XML. However, it does require that the above three things *can* 
      be specified." as it referred to the proposal, and because
      the contact states "sample XML format" and we have a note that
      we're still working on the meta model.

   COMMENT: I don't think these changes affect the meaning of the 
            text.

                             -oOo-

MAJOR ISSUES

These are fairly major parts that were cut away from the proposal. It
is not my intention to pick these up now (holiday season and all),
but I include these as a summary of what is left:

1. Standard context entries.

   a. Do we go with the urn:... syntax?

   b. What entries do we have as standard?

2. Metainfo

   a. What model?

   b. What DTD?

   c. Does the model require the DTD, or?

3. The future of Context (THIS IS FOR AVALON5)

   a.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-dev&m=103956260505223&w=2

   b.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-dev&m=104018170502239&w=2

                             -oOo-

FINAL WORDS

I think this proposal/vote went really fine. I see it as a sign that
there has been a change in the Avalon community. I also think that
the concept of regular summaries of everyone's viewpoints was a
good one. (I know *I'll* be using it more.)

/LS


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>