Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> A couple of months agro we started a coordinated release process 
>> commencing with the release of the LogKit package following by the 
>> framework. Work has moved on to the packages under the excalibur CVS 
>> with iminent releases of the component,testcase, instrument, 
>> instrument-manager, logger, and pool packages. Work in underway for 
>> the release of serveral additional excalibur components including the 
>> lifecycle package.
> 
> Wasn't the proposal about migrating the lifecycle package into framework 
> or did I overlook something?

you did :D

the proposal is for some cvs restructuring where we move several modules 
into avalon cvs, lifecycle being the first. Not into avalon-framework.jar.

> =>> 2) clarify the future of cornerstone
>>
>> Work has already been underten to seperate individual Corenerstone 
>> packages enabling some degreee of release control. The release process 
>> for individual corenerstone units will be undertaken following 
>> completion of the dependent excalibur packages.
> 
> Good.

search archives for "roadmap" for more ideas of the general plan. 
Basically following the gump dependency trail, we are.

>>> 3) stop one-man-shows
>>
>> Can you be more specific - what in you view are the one-man shows that 
>> must stop? 
> 
> I don't see many people working on Merlin. Is this a wrong perception?

nope. Merlin is a sandbox effort and will stay that way until lots of 
people (ie the entire community) have worked on it, looked at it, liked 
it, perhaps refactored a few times. We've talked about this, lots of 
people are looking at the developments. Steve's aware of all this, 
again, @see roadmap threads :D

>> Are these one-man shows related to released packages, packages 
>> scheduled for release, or are you referring to activities under the 
>> avalon-sandbox project.
> 
> I'm referring to Phoenix and Merlin. Both seem to me one-man-shows. But 
> hopefully I'm wrong.

yep.

> 1) something is moving into avalon framework
> 2) in my view of the world, this *something* is therefore going to be 
> considered *ROCK* solid
> 3) in my view of the way this project should work, *ROCK* solid is 
> something where we have consensus and has been discussed by many more 
> than three people.
> 4) a person that I technically respect highly believes that this 
> solution is half-baked (hack is a bad term) and there are better 
> solutions on the table.
> 
> This is enough set my 'serious avalon users' alarms off.
> 
> If any of the above is wrong, please, enlighten me.

#1 is, wrt #4, no working solutions which 'fit in' are on the table yet, 
but Pete definately has a point wrt interceptor architecture (it really 
is the "next big thing", except it is become the "current big thing" 
fast). #2 and #3, agreed.

cheers!

- Leo