RE: Spice Dependency (was: RE: Spice License)

> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[email protected]] 
> 
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:42, Leo Sutic wrote:
> >  1. Because the Avalon project voted that we should migrate to
> >     Commons CLI and not Spice CLI.
> 
> Nope. 
> 
> I would have vetoed any code change that led to that.

And you did. My mistake - my view of reality appears distorted.

However, I blame it all on Berin - his "Evening out the Release
Schedule" thread listed Excalibut CLI -> Commons CLI as a migration
path.

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=104698191317412&w=2

Either that, or the dog ate my email.

> As Noel pointed out I have pointed out the problems I have 
> with it numerous times in the past.

Those issues being:

 1. It has additional dependencies

 2. It's not under our control

(1) appeared fairly inconsequential - it had deps on Commons/Lang.
As for (2) well, Spice isn't either, is it?

> >     and then ket us help you resolve them instead of going off
> >     by yourself 90 degrees from the voted and decided path.
> 
> Actually Berin was supportive when I mentioned it the first 
> time which is why I did it. (And I plan to do the same to parts 
> of io as long as it remains deprecated and there is no high quality 
> alternative).

Well, I think there's a difference of interpertation here.

I think you refer to this mail:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=104583538310053&w=2

PeterD: No need to deprecate something that works and is mor 
PeterD: eloosely coupled than the alternative. However it may 
PeterD: be best to move it out of Avalon.

Berin: I think that is what everyone wants.  I have no problems with the
Spice
Berin: project hosting it.

I interpreted "hosting" as just taking the existing code as-is, and,
well, host it. I.e. put in on a server. I didn't read that as
fold it into the spice project by:

 + changing license

 + renaming packages

 + making Avalon code dependent on Spice-licensed code.

With Excalibur CLI migrating to a compatibility project, I'd prefer
to have Phoenix depend on *that*, and then, perhaps, move to Commons CLI
if it ever should become acceptable.

> The basic thing is that there is plenty of code in Avalon 
> that was written by me and was basically only maintained by 
> me.
> Some of it sucks, some is usable and some is good. If 
> Avalon wants it out then I am more than happy to move it 
> out and will do so. 

Well, there's moving out and moving out. I think the moving out
of Excalibur CLI has not been done in quite the way I thought it
would happen, and not quite in the way I think is best for Avalon.

> The problem occurs because people who don't contribute to a 
> component/area but are more than willing to tell others what 
> to do.

There are times when one should speak up *fast* to stop something,
or to avert something that may become a future problem.

For example, I oppose the Spice dependency as I see it leading to
future problems - licensing, dependencies, etc. You did much the
same regarding the Lifecycle-in-Framework discussion.

I don't see this as a problem.

If I make a change to some code that someone else thinks is bad
because it will cause problems down the road for some reason, I
don't mind hearing that person. Only if the other person is totally
uninterested in a compromise or in figuring out a solution is there
a problem. But I haven't seen much of that here.



Look, how about we meet half way - would you support going back to
Excalibur CLI (hosted in the Excalibur compatibility project here
at Apache), if I do the work?

/LS