You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2004/07/07 08:03:07 UTC
What happened to Avalon Framework
Hi,
just curious, but I'm looking at the shiny new site, but
don't see anywhere a link or mention of the avalon framework.
Has this gone?
Carsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just curious, but I'm looking at the shiny new site, but
> don't see anywhere a link or mention of the avalon framework.
> Has this gone?
The avalon framework is a part of the "Single Avalon Platform". You can
find details about the framework API and its role in component
management here:
http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/reference/component/index.html
The javadoc is included under the platform API spec.
http://avalon.apache.org/avalon/runtime/3.3.0/api/index.html
Cheers, Steve.
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> To me, the merging of Avalon and Merlin has now lost all traces of
> what is identifiably Avalon. This is not only a crying shame, but
> in complete disregard of its roots.
And it is hard to find references in Windows XP about MSDOS as well :o)
But let's put the blame where blame is due;
I.e. The current 'active' group of Avalon developers are
Merlin-proponents. We made a presentation to the ASF Board that it was
in the overall interest of Avalon that Merlin was broken out and we
moved to a TLP.
The Board decided the opposite and made the (unquoted) remark; Avalon
voted for a Single Unified Platform, so go ahead and make it happen.
The Board, otoh, decided it was in the best interest of legacy piece,
at that time homed at Avalon, to be given a TLP for future development
and support of existing applications.
Personally, I think the Board should have opted for the other way
around, and I think this current debate is a backlash against the
Board's decision, and those who influenced(!) the Board to make such
decision. I just live with the interpretation of the decision.
> The current definition of what makes Avalon components a component is
> far more than just framework anymore--so you really need to make it
> Avalon 5.0 and get rid of deprecated cruft. Just do it, because you
> have already made Avalon 4.x incompatible.
>
> I recommend still offering Avalon 4.x as a product, and redefining
> the current slab of products as Avalon 5. That would at least represent
> reality.
I totally agree with you here. I and Stephen will sure start an
official move towards Avalon 5 (note no framework).
Meanwhile, I expect that any incompatibilities in AF4.2 that are
genuine (instead of FUD) are reported and we try to deal with it.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
<snip>
>>>> And is not promoted as a separate "product" anymore?
>>>
>>> Correct.
<snip>
>> I guess this also includes that the framework will not be developed
>> separately anymore as a general basis for containers?
>
> The framework api expresses part of the contract between a container and
> a component. The complete contract encompasses the apis, meta-info,
> documented semantics, etc. I.e. the framework does not live in
> isolation. However - any container can code provide a implementation
> that backing the api - but if you want a general basis you would need to
> look beyond just the framework and include avalon-meta into your frame
> of reference. If you want to consider meta-data then you should be
> looking into the avalon composition package. You can also leverage the
> avalon-activation system for runtime support.
>
> The choices are really open.
Just getting back from vacation, and I am a bit concerned.
Avalon's main achievement up to not long ago was the framework. The
framework was a separate piece for a reason. Unfortunately, it appears
that Avalon Framework--the only piece that truly had full community
collaboration on--is being cast aside. Was it incomplete as a full
component specification? Sure, but you could count on it being stable.
Now it appears that the "Avalon" project is not Avalon, but Merlin.
It appears this way in every shape. This is a major concern because
if I am to be Avalon compliant, I have to be Merlin compatible without
any sort of test suite. I dislike some of the libraries for reasons
I won't go into at this time (they have been rehashed repeatedly ad
nauseum), so the only way to do without those libraries is to provide
a compatible solution--impossible without a test suite or definition
of compatibility that does not include product names in it.
To me, the merging of Avalon and Merlin has now lost all traces of
what is identifiably Avalon. This is not only a crying shame, but
in complete disregard of its roots.
The current definition of what makes Avalon components a component is
far more than just framework anymore--so you really need to make it
Avalon 5.0 and get rid of deprecated cruft. Just do it, because you
have already made Avalon 4.x incompatible.
I recommend still offering Avalon 4.x as a product, and redefining
the current slab of products as Avalon 5. That would at least represent
reality.
--
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
- Rich Cook
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
<snip>
>>>> And is not promoted as a separate "product" anymore?
>>>
>>> Correct.
<snip>
>> I guess this also includes that the framework will not be developed
>> separately anymore as a general basis for containers?
>
> The framework api expresses part of the contract between a container and
> a component. The complete contract encompasses the apis, meta-info,
> documented semantics, etc. I.e. the framework does not live in
> isolation. However - any container can code provide a implementation
> that backing the api - but if you want a general basis you would need to
> look beyond just the framework and include avalon-meta into your frame
> of reference. If you want to consider meta-data then you should be
> looking into the avalon composition package. You can also leverage the
> avalon-activation system for runtime support.
>
> The choices are really open.
Just getting back from vacation, and I am a bit concerned.
Avalon's main achievement up to not long ago was the framework. The
framework was a separate piece for a reason. Unfortunately, it appears
that Avalon Framework--the only piece that truly had full community
collaboration on--is being cast aside. Was it incomplete as a full
component specification? Sure, but you could count on it being stable.
Now it appears that the "Avalon" project is not Avalon, but Merlin.
It appears this way in every shape. This is a major concern because
if I am to be Avalon compliant, I have to be Merlin compatible without
any sort of test suite. I dislike some of the libraries for reasons
I won't go into at this time (they have been rehashed repeatedly ad
nauseum), so the only way to do without those libraries is to provide
a compatible solution--impossible without a test suite or definition
of compatibility that does not include product names in it.
To me, the merging of Avalon and Merlin has now lost all traces of
what is identifiably Avalon. This is not only a crying shame, but
in complete disregard of its roots.
The current definition of what makes Avalon components a component is
far more than just framework anymore--so you really need to make it
Avalon 5.0 and get rid of deprecated cruft. Just do it, because you
have already made Avalon 4.x incompatible.
I recommend still offering Avalon 4.x as a product, and redefining
the current slab of products as Avalon 5. That would at least represent
reality.
--
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
- Rich Cook
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> I noticed the lack of framework docs last night and I feel a dedicated
> section belongs with the other "subsystems" at:
>
> http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/system/index.html
>
> The problems with the 'assimilated' approach are
>
> - From a component author perspective the Avalon framework is the
> point of contact between my personal development and all this
> Avalon stuff.
That's the very thing that resulted in divergent and in-compatible
implementation approaches. Avalon Framework alone does not cut it - its
just a part of the component contract and to build against the contract
you have to take into consideration more than a bunch of interfaces:
* javadoc tags
* lifecycle artifacts (Configuration, Context, Parameters,
ServiceManager, etc.)
* delivery strategies
* lifestyles
Tis is presented under the "Component Model" and related javadoc.
http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/reference/component/index.html
http://avalon.apache.org/avalon/runtime/3.3.0/api/index.html
Cheers, Steve.
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>>
>>This became (as expected) a heated move, but Avalon can not,
>>and should not, center around a part that historically been
>>more important, but slowly and surely looses its relative importance.
>>
>>As for the future of Avalon Framework (from the independent
>>vendor's perspective, so to speak) is fairly straight forward
>>and 'safe'.
>>
>>Expect an AF 4.3 (Q3?), with minor additions and likely some
>>more deprecations.
>>Expect an AF 4.4 (Q4?), with an added Availability contract,
>>which I am very keen on getting done.
>>Expect an AF5 (next year), which is largely compatible with
>>AF4, where the deprecated stuff is removed.
>>
>>Expected stuff to be taken out by AF5; Composable and
>>associates, ReXXXable and associates, ThreadSafe and
>>associates, Selectors and the semantics surrounding it.
>>I can imagine that an AF4 compatibility layer could be
>>created for some demanding users, and I am fine with that.
>>
>
> Can you please give me a pointer to where this roadmap has been
> discussed?
Here on this list. The notion of 4.3 came up following resolution of
issues concerning logkit implementation dependencies within the api
classes - and from that we broke framework into 3 parts:
* api (clean)
* legacy (the offending stuff that was in api)
* impl (depends on legacy and api)
This is now reflected in avalon/trunck.
The subject of availability has been bobbing around for at least six
months and is a necessary ingredient at the framework level when dealing
with dynamically acquired services (something we are seeing more and
more frequently on the users list). As for A5 - not much discussion on
this that I can recall but I would also say that Niclas' outline seems
perfectly reasonable.
Cheers, Steve.
> Carsten
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
>
>
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> > Can you please give me a pointer to where this roadmap has been
> > discussed?
>
> Maybe I should have put a strong disclaimer that this was my
> private view of evolution, for which I _think_ there would be
> fairly strong consensus.
>
Ah, ok, I see - so nothing is decided yet and will be discussed.
Thanks ( - I thought I missed the threads)
Carsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Can you please give me a pointer to where this roadmap has been
> discussed?
Maybe I should have put a strong disclaimer that this was my private
view of evolution, for which I _think_ there would be fairly strong
consensus.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>
> This became (as expected) a heated move, but Avalon can not,
> and should not, center around a part that historically been
> more important, but slowly and surely looses its relative importance.
>
> As for the future of Avalon Framework (from the independent
> vendor's perspective, so to speak) is fairly straight forward
> and 'safe'.
>
> Expect an AF 4.3 (Q3?), with minor additions and likely some
> more deprecations.
> Expect an AF 4.4 (Q4?), with an added Availability contract,
> which I am very keen on getting done.
> Expect an AF5 (next year), which is largely compatible with
> AF4, where the deprecated stuff is removed.
>
> Expected stuff to be taken out by AF5; Composable and
> associates, ReXXXable and associates, ThreadSafe and
> associates, Selectors and the semantics surrounding it.
> I can imagine that an AF4 compatibility layer could be
> created for some demanding users, and I am fine with that.
>
Can you please give me a pointer to where this roadmap has been
discussed?
Carsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> The problems with the 'assimilated' approach are
>
> - From a component author perspective the Avalon framework is the
> point of contact between my personal development and all this
> Avalon stuff.
>
> - There are many other projects and applications which only use the
> Avalon framework. These groups will be interested in framework
> documentation which discusses it in a more 'standalone' context.
This became (as expected) a heated move, but Avalon can not, and
should not, center around a part that historically been more
important, but slowly and surely looses its relative importance.
As for the future of Avalon Framework (from the independent vendor's
perspective, so to speak) is fairly straight forward and 'safe'.
Expect an AF 4.3 (Q3?), with minor additions and likely some more
deprecations.
Expect an AF 4.4 (Q4?), with an added Availability contract, which I
am very keen on getting done.
Expect an AF5 (next year), which is largely compatible with AF4, where
the deprecated stuff is removed.
Expected stuff to be taken out by AF5; Composable and associates,
ReXXXable and associates, ThreadSafe and associates, Selectors and the
semantics surrounding it.
I can imagine that an AF4 compatibility layer could be created for
some demanding users, and I am fine with that.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>> I guess this also includes that the framework will not be developed
>> separately anymore as a general basis for containers?
<snip/>
> The choices are really open.
But not obvious, especially to a new user or someone not familiar with
the nuances of Avalon.
I noticed the lack of framework docs last night and I feel a dedicated
section belongs with the other "subsystems" at:
http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/system/index.html
The problems with the 'assimilated' approach are
- From a component author perspective the Avalon framework is the
point of contact between my personal development and all this
Avalon stuff.
- There are many other projects and applications which only use the
Avalon framework. These groups will be interested in framework
documentation which discusses it in a more 'standalone' context.
Whether there is another product icon on the front page for the
Framework is another matter (which might not be a bad idea). IMHO the
current docs are fine for describing the specification and how Merlin
implements the framework, but don't cut it for discussing the framework
itself.
Just my $0.02
jaaron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Does this mean the framework is not downloadable standalone anymore?
>>
>>Separate jar files will be available.
>>
>>
>>>And is not promoted as a separate "product" anymore?
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>
> What does this mean for current users of the framework, like Excalibur etc.?
No change - the jars are available and the specs are on-line.
> I guess this also includes that the framework will not be developed
> separately anymore as a general basis for containers?
The framework api expresses part of the contract between a container and
a component. The complete contract encompasses the apis, meta-info,
documented semantics, etc. I.e. the framework does not live in
isolation. However - any container can code provide a implementation
that backing the api - but if you want a general basis you would need to
look beyond just the framework and include avalon-meta into your frame
of reference. If you want to consider meta-data then you should be
looking into the avalon composition package. You can also leverage the
avalon-activation system for runtime support.
The choices are really open.
Cheers, Steve.
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Does this mean the framework is not downloadable standalone anymore?
>
> Separate jar files will be available.
>
> > And is not promoted as a separate "product" anymore?
>
> Correct.
>
What does this mean for current users of the framework, like Excalibur etc.?
I guess this also includes that the framework will not be developed
separately anymore as a general basis for containers?
Carsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Does this mean the framework is not downloadable standalone anymore?
Separate jar files will be available.
> And is not promoted as a separate "product" anymore?
Correct.
Steve.
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Thanks!
Does this mean the framework is not downloadable standalone anymore?
And is not promoted as a separate "product" anymore?
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:05 AM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > just curious, but I'm looking at the shiny new site, but don't see
> > anywhere a link or mention of the avalon framework.
> > Has this gone?
>
> It has been 'assimmilated' into the bigger picture, and the
> aspects of the complete platform that was known as
> 'Framework' can now be found at;
>
> http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/reference/component/
> index.html
>
> i.e. parts of the overall specification.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: What happened to Avalon Framework
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just curious, but I'm looking at the shiny new site, but
> don't see anywhere a link or mention of the avalon framework.
> Has this gone?
It has been 'assimmilated' into the bigger picture, and the aspects of
the complete platform that was known as 'Framework' can now be found at;
http://avalon.apache.org/products/runtime/reference/component/index.html
i.e. parts of the overall specification.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org