You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> on 2004/04/07 03:43:26 UTC
First IRC Meeting concluded
The >2hour meeting has been finished and the log is now available at;
http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-04-07.070710.txt
Cheers
Niclas
P.S. The log has a 'non-time' format for a while, since I was kicked for
'typing too much' and thanks to those who sent me the missing piece.
--
+---------//-------------------+
| http://www.bali.ac |
| http://niclas.hedhman.org |
+------//----------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: First IRC Meeting concluded
Posted by Shash Chatterjee <sh...@badfw.org>.
All,
> The >2hour meeting has been finished and the log is now available at;
> http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-04-07.070710.txt
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> P.S. The log has a 'non-time' format for a while, since I was kicked for
> 'typing too much' and thanks to those who sent me the missing piece.
>
It was interesting to read the discussion here. I fully understand the
need of the Avalon developer community to focus on a single container
implementation (believe you me, I truly understand how scarce OSS
developer resources are). Having said that, it is too simplistic to
think that Fortress can simply be moved out of the Avalon repository and
that is all current users of Fortress will care about. What is left
unsaid is the fate of the Avalon frmaework interfaces. If indeed
Fortress is moved out, will Avalon Framework be left (relatively)
untouched so two (or more) containers: Fortress, outside of Avalon, and
Merlin, within Avalon, can be written to the same interfaces? I have a
feeling that once Fortress is out of the way, not to speak of Plexus,
Jcontainer, Loom, etc., Merlin will have a disproportionate influence on
how the framework evolves. Should it not be that the interface drives
the implementations? I think the way to guarantee that would be to
split the Framework and any implementations into completely separate
projects.
If on the other hand, there will always be one interface and one
implementation, then why bother with the interface/impl. split?
Shash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: First IRC Meeting concluded
Posted by Shash Chatterjee <sh...@badfw.org>.
All,
> The >2hour meeting has been finished and the log is now available at;
> http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-04-07.070710.txt
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> P.S. The log has a 'non-time' format for a while, since I was kicked for
> 'typing too much' and thanks to those who sent me the missing piece.
>
It was interesting to read the discussion here. I fully understand the
need of the Avalon developer community to focus on a single container
implementation (believe you me, I truly understand how scarce OSS
developer resources are). Having said that, it is too simplistic to
think that Fortress can simply be moved out of the Avalon repository and
that is all current users of Fortress will care about. What is left
unsaid is the fate of the Avalon frmaework interfaces. If indeed
Fortress is moved out, will Avalon Framework be left (relatively)
untouched so two (or more) containers: Fortress, outside of Avalon, and
Merlin, within Avalon, can be written to the same interfaces? I have a
feeling that once Fortress is out of the way, not to speak of Plexus,
Jcontainer, Loom, etc., Merlin will have a disproportionate influence on
how the framework evolves. Should it not be that the interface drives
the implementations? I think the way to guarantee that would be to
split the Framework and any implementations into completely separate
projects.
If on the other hand, there will always be one interface and one
implementation, then why bother with the interface/impl. split?
Shash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: First IRC Meeting concluded
Posted by Shash Chatterjee <sh...@badfw.org>.
All,
> The >2hour meeting has been finished and the log is now available at;
> http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-04-07.070710.txt
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> P.S. The log has a 'non-time' format for a while, since I was kicked for
> 'typing too much' and thanks to those who sent me the missing piece.
>
It was interesting to read the discussion here. I fully understand the
need of the Avalon developer community to focus on a single container
implementation (believe you me, I truly understand how scarce OSS
developer resources are). Having said that, it is too simplistic to
think that Fortress can simply be moved out of the Avalon repository and
that is all current users of Fortress will care about. What is left
unsaid is the fate of the Avalon frmaework interfaces. If indeed
Fortress is moved out, will Avalon Framework be left (relatively)
untouched so two (or more) containers: Fortress, outside of Avalon, and
Merlin, within Avalon, can be written to the same interfaces? I have a
feeling that once Fortress is out of the way, not to speak of Plexus,
Jcontainer, Loom, etc., Merlin will have a disproportionate influence on
how the framework evolves. Should it not be that the interface drives
the implementations? I think the way to guarantee that would be to
split the Framework and any implementations into completely separate
projects.
If on the other hand, there will always be one interface and one
implementation, then why bother with the interface/impl. split?
Shash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org