Avalon Components (Re: Our site is too big)

Berin Loritsch wrote:
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[email protected]]
> 
[...]
> If you are looking at consolidating everything down into both:
> 
> avalon
> avalon-sandbox
> 
> then I am +1.

ok, same here.

> We should look at moving each project to a final resting place.
> If that is in "avalon", great.  If it is in "apache-commons" or
> "jakarta-commons", great.  If it is kept, great.
> 
> We just need to look at the things piece by piece.

Yes, I agree.

I think that we should now decide where to put the Avalon components, if 
in Apache Commons or Avalon Components.

I'm mildly in favor for avalon-components, where to put cornerstone and 
excalibur components, and give access to all projects that have a 
representative in our PMC (as discussed for outer-avalon people in the 
PMC).

For example, now James has patched the cornerstone code to fix it for 
them (and they did the right thing). It would have been easier for them 
to be able to access a common repository of components for Avalon projects.
Same problem for Cocoon components in excalibur, that were once in the 
Cocoon codebase.

Practically, it would mean that we have a Avalon Components subproject, 
with the same committers of Avalon plus others from external project 
that use our components (rules to be defined)
The CVS module would be avalon-components, and it would keep what now 
are excalibur and cornerstone components, and the new components in 
Avalon 5 when they come.
Or simply decide to open to these committers excalibur and cornerstone 
CVS, as legacy code of the components project.

> Having the site shaped up on the new avalon CVS repo makes alot
> of sense.


-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [email protected]
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------