Re: Containerkit

Leo,

> Containerkit is not 'alpha' in the sense of code quality. It _is_ 
> alpha in the sense of "we're not guaranteeing backwards compatibility 
> on this stuff (we're not done yet with the meta model disucssion)".
>
> As such I think it fits in sandbox. 

Fine, start some other project.

It was refactored out of Phoenix. Phoenix is shipping. Phoenix is not alpha.

> However, if containerkit is used and needed in phoenix (looking at my 
> current phoenix lib dir, it's not, 

Look again.  lib/container/

> but the info package in sandbox is, so the principal discussion is the 
> same), and it's alpha state is hampering phoenix development (which is 
> why you're posting this message, innit?), we need to find a way 
> arround that. 

This is not about info versus containerkit.  It is about Phoenix.

>>  b) absorbing of containerkit into Phoenix (giving it x.x.phoenix 
>> packages).
>
>
> Given the speed the "common ground" discussions are taking I think 
> this is the best compromise. I am a bit concerned about later 
> backwards compatibility (if the final "common meta setup" we agree 
> upon deviates a lot from the one currently used in 
> containerkit/info/phoenix, it'll be a lot of work to get phoenix to 
> support both). 

We're gong for a scrap current (meta-model) design right for uber right?

> Given recent developments at work, it is unlikely I'll have the time 
> to invest to do that conversion work (you might notice me working on 
> fortress though ;), so I won't give a +1, but if there's enough peeps 
> willing to commit to it, then I certainly don't have any other 
> objection, and I'll give an as-supportive-as-possible +0 on option (b).
>
> I would like to see the coupling between phoenix and a specific meta 
> model kept as small as possible though, with the eye on easing 
> migration to something else later. 

That will not change based on the location of container-kit will it?

> I'd also like to see some notice in the phoenix documentation that 
> although the meta materials are stable codewise (and supported as 
> such), we're not too sure about some aspects yet and thus that there 
> may be big changes in future versions (as we already know this, users 
> should know too :D). 

I don't see why Phonix has to carry adverts for meta (which it does not 
use).  Meta is in sandbox right?

> I do think a version of containerkit should remain in avalon-sandbox 
> as there's stuff to harvest from it in the continuing "common meta 
> setup" area.

Given you now understand it is used by Phoenix, do you have a modified 
opinion?

- Paul