Re: [PROPOSAL] Avalon Components

Leo Simons wrote:

> 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.


This is same concern that is underling my last message.  I'm bothered by 
the notion of a Avalon Commons as another repository (although I can see 
benefits), but I think Leo's comments on subject are on the button. 
 However - ther is something missing - a playground for user to 
experiment with Avalon and get our feedback on apprach, best practices, 
etc.  The sort of place that supports and supports the adoption hurdle. 
 It's not the sandbox - it something like:

    ${avalon-playgound}

Image multiple project in avalon playground - with the conditions that 
content in playground is just that - somewhere to play - to learn - not 
a platform for building a private party - an environment for learing, 
evolving and moving on.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.osm.net