RE: [PROPOSAL] Avalon Components

> I'm so very much against "Yet Another Commons"

For any "commons", I do think that you need to understand the context.  It
isn't as if they are common out of context.  To be truely common, something
would need to be dependent upon nothing (or at least a universal context).
In the case of Avalon Commons, it would be for components that require the
Avalon frameworks.  For the sake of argument, if we had a "commons" for
James, it would be for modules that could plug into James.

That is the semantic argument for contextual commons.

The CVS rights argument is that CVS assigns rights on module boundaries.  If
you have one Commons, then anyone allowed to work on one part can work on
all parts.  True, Commons is using Subversion, but that just raises other
issues for anyone wanting to work on that code, and adds additional
complications for building Avalon and related projects, e.g., having to get
some out of CVS and some out of Subversion.

Be that as it may, I don't know that there is any point to an Avalon
Components module for the reasons Nicola states:

> It is. James uses Cornerstone components that are now bugged. They want
> to fix them. I think it's in the best interest of both of us projects to
> make it happen.

If that is the reason, then the solutions are to (a) have someone already in
Avalon make fixes and/or (b) just make one or more of us Committers on the
relevant Avalon module(s), which is the same as what the Avalon Components
proposal basically amounts does.

	--- Noel