You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by "Farr, Aaron" <Aa...@am.sony.com> on 2004/07/12 21:16:13 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Avalon 5
Okay, trying to stop the flames and get back to constructive proposals.
This is an actual "proposal" in the sense that I'd like to gauge the support
for it and, if necessary, move it to a vote.
Purpose
=======
To relieve current tensions on the Avalon platform; ensure stability for
existing Avalon framework users; allow for development and enhancement of
future versions.
Preface
=======
The idea of "Avalon 4" versus "Avalon 5" is more than just the version
number of the framework jars. Avalon 4 has referred informally to the
entire Avalon platform. If we think of Avalon as a single product, then
Avalon 4 refers to the entire suite of Avalon projects at the time: Avalon
framework, Fortress, Merlin, Excalibur, Phoenix, etc.
Basic Plan
==========
Label the current Avalon-Merlin platform as presented in the current website
(specifically the 'specification section') as Avalon 5.
Present Avalon 4 as a separate "product" which would include: the
Avalon-Framework jars, javadocs, and related documentation. An SVN branch
will be created that will be considered STABLE and will only accept bug
fixes.
Results
=======
Avalon clients and sister projects such as Excalibur will be assured that
Avalon 4 will remain stable. They can continue to develop products based on
'classic' Avalon or they can chose to use the newer and better defined
Avalon 5 platform. As Berin pointed out, this gives us all, users and
developers alike, a "line in the sand."
I just want this to all be behind us and I believe this proposal will allow
that.
J. Aaron Farr
SONY ELECTRONICS
STP SYSTEMS
(724) 696-7653
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon 5
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
+1
Farr, Aaron wrote:
> Okay, trying to stop the flames and get back to constructive proposals.
>
> This is an actual "proposal" in the sense that I'd like to gauge the support
> for it and, if necessary, move it to a vote.
>
> Purpose
> =======
> To relieve current tensions on the Avalon platform; ensure stability for
> existing Avalon framework users; allow for development and enhancement of
> future versions.
>
> Preface
> =======
> The idea of "Avalon 4" versus "Avalon 5" is more than just the version
> number of the framework jars. Avalon 4 has referred informally to the
> entire Avalon platform. If we think of Avalon as a single product, then
> Avalon 4 refers to the entire suite of Avalon projects at the time: Avalon
> framework, Fortress, Merlin, Excalibur, Phoenix, etc.
>
> Basic Plan
> ==========
> Label the current Avalon-Merlin platform as presented in the current website
> (specifically the 'specification section') as Avalon 5.
>
> Present Avalon 4 as a separate "product" which would include: the
> Avalon-Framework jars, javadocs, and related documentation. An SVN branch
> will be created that will be considered STABLE and will only accept bug
> fixes.
>
> Results
> =======
> Avalon clients and sister projects such as Excalibur will be assured that
> Avalon 4 will remain stable. They can continue to develop products based on
> 'classic' Avalon or they can chose to use the newer and better defined
> Avalon 5 platform. As Berin pointed out, this gives us all, users and
> developers alike, a "line in the sand."
>
> I just want this to all be behind us and I believe this proposal will allow
> that.
>
> J. Aaron Farr
> SONY ELECTRONICS
> STP SYSTEMS
> (724) 696-7653
--
"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: [PROPOSAL] Avalon 5
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
-1
This is a proposal that completely ignores the realities on the group.
We have a bunch of projects with an array of version identifiers.
Changes are being made against different packages in order to meet
operational requirements. Those changes implicate version numbers. To
consider a proposal to change version numbers based on the less than 24
hours of noise is IMO not responsible.
Wait a couple of days and noise will go away and life will continue as
normal.
Cheers, Stephen.
Farr, Aaron wrote:
> Okay, trying to stop the flames and get back to constructive proposals.
>
> This is an actual "proposal" in the sense that I'd like to gauge the support
> for it and, if necessary, move it to a vote.
>
> Purpose
> =======
> To relieve current tensions on the Avalon platform; ensure stability for
> existing Avalon framework users; allow for development and enhancement of
> future versions.
>
> Preface
> =======
> The idea of "Avalon 4" versus "Avalon 5" is more than just the version
> number of the framework jars. Avalon 4 has referred informally to the
> entire Avalon platform. If we think of Avalon as a single product, then
> Avalon 4 refers to the entire suite of Avalon projects at the time: Avalon
> framework, Fortress, Merlin, Excalibur, Phoenix, etc.
>
> Basic Plan
> ==========
> Label the current Avalon-Merlin platform as presented in the current website
> (specifically the 'specification section') as Avalon 5.
>
> Present Avalon 4 as a separate "product" which would include: the
> Avalon-Framework jars, javadocs, and related documentation. An SVN branch
> will be created that will be considered STABLE and will only accept bug
> fixes.
>
> Results
> =======
> Avalon clients and sister projects such as Excalibur will be assured that
> Avalon 4 will remain stable. They can continue to develop products based on
> 'classic' Avalon or they can chose to use the newer and better defined
> Avalon 5 platform. As Berin pointed out, this gives us all, users and
> developers alike, a "line in the sand."
>
> I just want this to all be behind us and I believe this proposal will allow
> that.
>
> J. Aaron Farr
> SONY ELECTRONICS
> STP SYSTEMS
> (724) 696-7653
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Avalon 5
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Farr, Aaron wrote:
>
>> Basic Plan
>> ==========
>> Label the current Avalon-Merlin platform as presented in the current
>> website
>> (specifically the 'specification section') as Avalon 5.
>>
>> Present Avalon 4 as a separate "product" which would include: the
>> Avalon-Framework jars, javadocs, and related documentation. An SVN
>> branch
>> will be created that will be considered STABLE and will only accept bug
>> fixes.
>
>
> A few days ago, I outlined a 'continuum' of evolution of AF4 into the
> Avalon 5.
>
> The only reaction to that was "has this been discussed", and I took that
> as "sounds reasonable to everyone, let's work on that".
>
> I see the whole flamefest this time, being a big mis-communication,
> assumptions and scracthing of old wounds.
>
> AF4 has been the term I learned, and not Avalon 4. I think AF4 should
> evolve prior to an Avalon 5. An abrupt jump now will mainly constitute a
> fork, which is not good for anyone.
>
> AF4.2 has no fundamental change that Berin, Leo and other container
> authors should have a problem with.
> The changes I would like to see in 4.3 (mainly deprecations) will
> probably also be considered reasonable.
> Introduction of an Availability contract prior to Avalon 5, is perhaps
> more controversial, but could be handled amicably, and if the AF4
> container authors are not Ok with it, it will become a separate spec
> from AF4, and marked Avalon Availability 1.0.
>
> Then we collect the entire suite, and create Avalon 5.
>
> This is IMO a much more 'small steps' and evolutionary, than making a
> break at this time, just because of political reasons.
+1
--
|---------------------------------------|
| 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: [PROPOSAL] Avalon 5
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Farr, Aaron wrote:
> Basic Plan
> ==========
> Label the current Avalon-Merlin platform as presented in the current website
> (specifically the 'specification section') as Avalon 5.
>
> Present Avalon 4 as a separate "product" which would include: the
> Avalon-Framework jars, javadocs, and related documentation. An SVN branch
> will be created that will be considered STABLE and will only accept bug
> fixes.
A few days ago, I outlined a 'continuum' of evolution of AF4 into the
Avalon 5.
The only reaction to that was "has this been discussed", and I took
that as "sounds reasonable to everyone, let's work on that".
I see the whole flamefest this time, being a big mis-communication,
assumptions and scracthing of old wounds.
AF4 has been the term I learned, and not Avalon 4. I think AF4 should
evolve prior to an Avalon 5. An abrupt jump now will mainly constitute
a fork, which is not good for anyone.
AF4.2 has no fundamental change that Berin, Leo and other container
authors should have a problem with.
The changes I would like to see in 4.3 (mainly deprecations) will
probably also be considered reasonable.
Introduction of an Availability contract prior to Avalon 5, is perhaps
more controversial, but could be handled amicably, and if the AF4
container authors are not Ok with it, it will become a separate spec
from AF4, and marked Avalon Availability 1.0.
Then we collect the entire suite, and create Avalon 5.
This is IMO a much more 'small steps' and evolutionary, than making a
break at this time, just because of political reasons.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org