You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org> on 2002/06/18 14:55:07 UTC
DROP ECM!
We keep talking about the ECM as if it were an exemplary container,
and we all know it is not. Please do not pretend to give migration
paths for it. We should encourage the migration to one of the other
containers, be it Fortress, Phoenix, or Merlin.
ECM should be considered a backwards compatibility layer, and
deprecated.
Before we can slap the deprecation declaration on the package we must
finish the proposed replacement (Fortress) so that it is easier to use
and to develop with.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DROP ECM!
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@osm.net>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@osm.net]
>>
>>Marcus Crafter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 08:55:07AM -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>We keep talking about the ECM as if it were an exemplary container,
>>>>and we all know it is not. Please do not pretend to give migration
>>>>paths for it. We should encourage the migration to one of
>>>>
>>>>
>>the other
>>
>>
>>>>containers, be it Fortress, Phoenix, or Merlin.
>>>>
>>>>ECM should be considered a backwards compatibility layer, and
>>>>deprecated. Before we can slap the deprecation declaration on the
>>>>package we must finish the proposed replacement (Fortress)
>>>>
>>>>
>>so that it
>>
>>
>>>>is easier to use and to develop with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What's still left to be done on Fortress ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And how does Forturss relate to Merlin.
>>What oportunities exist for mutual plundering?
>>Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>
>
>As much as possible, I want us to come up with a unified idea of
>what an Avalon container does. If Merlin and Fortress share code,
>even better. In fact I would prefer it that way.
>
>The focus of Fortress is to provide an abstraction for creating
>your own container on top of it. The abstraction does all the
>necessary stuff to maintain Avalon contracts while allowing the
>user to extend it to provide a hierarchical container system.
>
>Merlin is (as far as I know) an implementation of a container.
>
>However, noone here thinks that the ECM is an example of a good
>container, and as a result we should drop mentioning it in our
>posts.
>
>
Ok - but we need asistance from you and Leo.
In the discussions on A5 and CM the issue were focussed on use cases
linked to Cocoon and that drove the dicusion to ECM and that standing
assumption for the moment is that Fortress is basically ECM with
seperation of some things. However, there hasn't been any info from the
Fortress champions in terms of what it is that Fortress has solved -
while ignorance is bliss - ECM seems to be a known reference point.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: DROP ECM!
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@osm.net]
>
> Marcus Crafter wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 08:55:07AM -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >
> >
> >>We keep talking about the ECM as if it were an exemplary container,
> >>and we all know it is not. Please do not pretend to give migration
> >>paths for it. We should encourage the migration to one of
> the other
> >>containers, be it Fortress, Phoenix, or Merlin.
> >>
> >>ECM should be considered a backwards compatibility layer, and
> >>deprecated. Before we can slap the deprecation declaration on the
> >>package we must finish the proposed replacement (Fortress)
> so that it
> >>is easier to use and to develop with.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > What's still left to be done on Fortress ?
> >
>
> And how does Forturss relate to Merlin.
> What oportunities exist for mutual plundering?
> Cheers, Steve.
As much as possible, I want us to come up with a unified idea of
what an Avalon container does. If Merlin and Fortress share code,
even better. In fact I would prefer it that way.
The focus of Fortress is to provide an abstraction for creating
your own container on top of it. The abstraction does all the
necessary stuff to maintain Avalon contracts while allowing the
user to extend it to provide a hierarchical container system.
Merlin is (as far as I know) an implementation of a container.
However, noone here thinks that the ECM is an example of a good
container, and as a result we should drop mentioning it in our
posts.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DROP ECM!
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@osm.net>.
Marcus Crafter wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 08:55:07AM -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>
>>We keep talking about the ECM as if it were an exemplary container,
>>and we all know it is not. Please do not pretend to give migration
>>paths for it. We should encourage the migration to one of the other
>>containers, be it Fortress, Phoenix, or Merlin.
>>
>>ECM should be considered a backwards compatibility layer, and
>>deprecated.
>>Before we can slap the deprecation declaration on the package we must
>>finish the proposed replacement (Fortress) so that it is easier to use
>>and to develop with.
>>
>>
>
> What's still left to be done on Fortress ?
>
And how does Forturss relate to Merlin.
What oportunities exist for mutual plundering?
Cheers, Steve.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DROP ECM!
Posted by Marcus Crafter <cr...@fztig938.bank.dresdner.net>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 08:55:07AM -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> We keep talking about the ECM as if it were an exemplary container,
> and we all know it is not. Please do not pretend to give migration
> paths for it. We should encourage the migration to one of the other
> containers, be it Fortress, Phoenix, or Merlin.
>
> ECM should be considered a backwards compatibility layer, and
> deprecated.
> Before we can slap the deprecation declaration on the package we must
> finish the proposed replacement (Fortress) so that it is easier to use
> and to develop with.
What's still left to be done on Fortress ?
Cheers
Marcus
--
.....
,,$$$$$$$$$, Marcus Crafter
;$' '$$$$: Computer Systems Engineer
$: $$$$: ManageSoft GmbH
$ o_)$$$: 82-84 Mainzer Landstrasse
;$, _/\ &&:' 60327 Frankfurt Germany
' /( &&&
\_&&&&'
&&&&.
&&&&&&&:
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>