Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon Components

Hi Nicola,

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
<snipping lots of stuff/>
> The main reason to make this here at Avalon is to have real contact with
> the users of Avalon, and have them actively partecipate in the component
> development. Avalon has had great benefit from the partecipation had in
> the last month of outer-avalon developers of projects that use Avalon,
> and we would like it to continue.

+1.

> More practically, it would unite Excalibur and Cornerstone, and make it 
> possible for James developers to fix the Cornerstone components that are 
> driving them mad directly in the repository, and facilitate the usage 
> and fixing of our components by interested Turbine developers.

big advantage!

> There were two issues brought up about this happening.
> 
> Leo Simmons correctly reminded that there is an Apache Commons project, 
> that could make a cool repository for all Avalon Components for all 
> Apache projects.
> 
> IMHO we are still far away from that possibility. I really don't think 
> that in the short-mid term Turbine or James developers would want to 
> move their stuff into that repo, because there is no real need. What 
> they would do, is to partecipate in the *generic* components, that we 
> would keep here, in Avalon Components.

IMO all it takes is someone 'just doing it'. Apache Commons is just 
about ready for some components. I'm not saying the turbine or james 
developers would need to move their components, but if we move ours they 
can still get access as well....

On my agenda is asking: "Guys, can we move components X, Y, Z currently 
in cvs module A, B, C over to Commons?"

And then doing it. Until I see a definitive "no" answer I'm not liking 
"Avalon Components".

> I have not yet recieved public answer from the question I gave to the 
> board about this. TO resolve this, I propose that we ask the board to 
> retify an addendum at the next meeting for our charter *if* they decide 
> that it's needed for this subproject creation:
> 
>   RESOLVED, that the Avalon PMC be and hereby is responsible
>   for the creation and maintenance of software related to
>   component and service management, and components and services
>   themselves designed to operate in it, based on software licensed
>   to the Foundation;

I'm so very much against "Yet Another Commons" . . . . Jakarta Commons, 
XML Commons, Apache Commons, Avalon Commons, James Commons, Cocoon 
Commons.......it's simply doesn't make sense. And I'm not even talking 
about the negative vibes it'll send through the wider community (based 
on experience from the reorg@apache list).

We've got two kinds of components:

- those useful in a very wide scope, like Zip or Datasource
- those useful only (mostly) in developing avalon containers or 
infrastructure on top of avalon, like instrument, extension, 
containerkit....

for the first one, that should go to a _common_ commons. For the second 
one, if it makes sense to have those seperated out into a different cvs, 
okay. But that certainly doesn't require amendment of the board 
resolution. Nor do I think it is of interest to the james or turbine 
developers to work on _those_ components.

regards,

- Leo