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

> >  1. Because the Avalon project voted that we should migrate to
> >     Commons CLI and not Spice CLI.

My understanding is that the Avalon Community has adopted a policy that what
it considers its core functionality should rely upon standard, maintained,
packages, rather than expending resources to maintain ancillary,
semi-competitive, packages.  Standard appears to be defined as either
java.*, javax.*, or org.apache.  Apparently, CLI is not considered part of
the core functionality.

In some cases, I have seen arguments that a standard package isn't suitable
because it has incompatible interfaces, e.g., precludes IoC/SoC.  Even so,
it might be acceptable for Avalon to use adapter classes rather than
complete implementations where possible.

> I would have vetoed any code change that led to that. I was opposed to
> the deprecation of a stable working library

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

Once more won't hurt.  Let's focus on the technical.  What are the technical
issues that block migrating Avalon dependency from its own CLI to Commons
CLI?  What would have to be done with Commons CLI to eliminate the
objections?

	--- Noel