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

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>>> 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:

I have reviwed all occurances of the usage of the excalibur CLI package 
that I was able to identity across the CVS repositories I have locally, 
and any available Gump references I was able to track down.  The lead me 
to the review of the Phoenix project, Cocoon, and Turbine.  In each case 
the CLI usage patterns were consitent with the functioanlity provided by 
the Jakarta Commons CLI package.  I made a note to that effect on this 
list when the dicussions took place concerning a community policy of 
migration from Excalibur CLI towards Commons CLI.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

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